Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@Ionus,

Ionus, The only problem with your assumption is that the so-called world in that period included a large swat of what is now Greece into most countries of the Middle East. It wasn't that "local."

Migration started in Africa, going east towards China, then going southward toward Australia, and finally into Europe. This all happened by 60,000 BC.

2 Replies

I was a bit perplexed to join the discussion here after seeing that the latest posts have reached 314 pages. Shows how this topic is greatly amusing and relevent in todays times in America.

There is a chinese saying that says 'we are living in interesting times' , or to that effect. I would humbly, rather crudely, add that 'America is living in dangerous times'.

In India these are non-issues. We were and being taught about both sides of the story. The creation stories were taught to us mostly in the primary school without it being formalised, while evolutionary theories were formally taught to us as General Science, mostly during the Secondary and Higher secondary stages. I can't see why Americans - the freedom loving people they claim they are, can't sort out these minor issues.

3 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

We are quite careful about whose freedoms we just bat around. If a Creationist attempts to have their beliefs "formalized" in a science class its not necessarily a minor issue to us.(Maybe some day my freedoms will be opposed). Thats one of the areas our Constitution promotes, so we have to carfeully test many of these seemingly silly areas until we have it suitably defined for posterity.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

I know you wont understand this, but if the ancient world was limited to knowledge of the local area, then of course it was a world wide flood.

That has been the working hypothesis of Ryn nd Pittman when they used geophysics to define the post Pleistocene encampments of the Black Sea and the Pleicoene sedimentation and infilling of the Mediterranean). Their working hypothesis was that post glacial flooding that affected Black sea civilizations was responsible for the origin of several of the major flood myths, and that's all ok in the context of "transitional history" I think we all understand that pretty well.

Now, why not just try to convince the YEC's (who insist that their own "data" supports a global flood ). If youd have read some of the Creationist abstracts youd have seen that mere science is often the first thing to be trampled in favor of a good yarn supporting a religious belief. Im sure we all know this, perhaps you missed the meeting.

1 Reply

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Quote:

There is a chinese saying that says 'we are living in interesting times'

It's a curse Jack. "May you live in interesting times".

Which we do.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Your disagreement should be with the YECs since they are the ones who scream that there was a worldwide flood.

There are no YECs on here. And I have never met anyone screaming there was a worldwide flood. Perhaps you search them out so you have a sitting duck to deal with using you scientific instrument print-outs.

I can't remember ever knowing the Apostle's Creed.

Quote:

you seem to have come full circle to agree with the majority on this thread.

I don't rate psychiatry but if I thought I had come full circle with you lot I would consider giving it a try.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

I know you wont understand this, but if the ancient world was limited to knowledge of the local area, then of course it was a world wide flood. Why would anyone assume the world went to places unseen and unknown ?

Just here is where you need Oswald Spengler.

In fact, other horizons were banned in Ancient Greece. Other horizons imply others and on unto the infinite. Thus Paganism is undermined. That is why their mathematics stopped at the limits of vision. Christianity, with its Prime Symbol of pure infinite space in the light world, overcame that and invented all the gizmos we have to make life less of a trial.

There is not the slightest possibility of atheists ever doing that. The Greeks had their atheist philosophers. They indulged in a life of indolence and carnality based on the work of slaves.

The Parthenon, for example, is a building of the same type kids make with their Lego kits. The Dolmen principle which Peckinpah was fascinated with. The grand scale is down to whipping slaves. Like the Mosque it excludes direct sunlight. The cathedral is a new order of being. It is a light and sound machine which reaches to infinite space and contemplates in the spire the tending to zero principle of calculus without which we would still be scrabbling in the muck and which we will return to doing if anti-IDers win through to power. That's why fm is drawn to constructing an authentic currach from materials purchased in DIY stores and with power tools. Some university ought to fund him being dropped on the west coast of Ireland so he can make a currach using his bare hands.

But Spengler is the man. Anybody who can't or won't read Spengler has no right to be saying anything about the education of a nation's future generations. Especially if what he has to say is based on nothing other than to justify sexual licentiousness.

Faustians are here for the foreseeable future. Anti-IDers are here for this week's grope or rationalising those of yesteryear.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Migration started in Africa, going east towards China, then going southward toward Australia, and finally into Europe. This all happened by 60,000 BC.

Well done ci. What an amazing grasp you have of history.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

The Parthenon, for example, is a building of the same type kids make with their Lego kits. The Dolmen principle which Peckinpah was fascinated with. The grand scale is down to whipping slaves. Like the Mosque it excludes direct sunlight. The cathedral is a new order of being. It is a light and sound machine which reaches to infinite space and contemplates in the spire the tending to zero principle of calculus without which we would still be scrabbling in the muck and which we will return to doing if anti-IDers win through to power. That's why fm is drawn to constructing an authentic currach from materials purchased in DIY stores and with power tools. Some university ought to fund him being dropped on the west coast of Ireland so he can make a currach using his bare hands.

ANYBODY remember Professor Erwin Correy?
I think spendi wins the Erwin Correy Memorial circumnavigation Award for pointless prose.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Spendi, Id like to enter a wee suggestion. Why not write down the point you wish to emphasize on a post -it and then put it on your computer screen .Just Like a GPS beacon, the post -it note will provide you with good direction of thought and will be a constant reminder against wandering too far off the reservation.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

At the outset, i would make my position and background clear for one should also know whom you are batting against.

I am a naturalist. And i believe that Darwin got most of it right.

But, sir, how is the believers tale going to harm a non-believing scientist. How does a child of a non-believer become a believer? Its hard to understand.

A talking point would be - the number of fairy tales that we learn and recite, does it eventually lead us to have a different worldly outlook than a scientific one.

3 Replies

@spendius,

thanks spendi for the correction,
you got it right.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I have a perfectly good and consistent "point". It is your stubborn resistance to it that is the problem. It has been my "point" for seven years and you never take it on. If you don't know by now what it is you either can't read or can't retain anything which contradicts your bigotry.

It is that Christianity comprises the whole of your cultural heritage and is responsible for your lifestyle. The biological side is also a heritage but it is not one polite people discuss. So much so that you are in denial of it yourself except in regard to certain innocuous aspects you think you can turn to account for reasons I have explained at length.

And that dramatic deviations, such as anti-ID is, are to be treated with the utmost care in case they involve a chance of resulting in destitution. They have not been tested as Christianity has. You are playing with fire but one that has a combustion rate too slow to burn your fingers. Your previous signature line calls into question the Faustian dogma of care for the future. And your new one has now gone to the bottom of all the posts you've ever written and for the vast bulk of them looks particularly silly. In fact for all of them.

0 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Quote:

A talking point would be - the number of fairy tales that we learn and recite, does it eventually lead us to have a different worldly outlook than a scientific one.

They won't answer that Jack. Numerous variations on the point have been put to them but they never think of responding. They daren't you see.

Because the "fairy tales" in childhood and adolescence do lead to a different outlook than would be obtained by sticking to scientific truth and detract not one jot from any scientist's ability to perform his tasks as a servant of those who pay for his education, his salaries, his equipment, his trips and his mountings of fossils and nubile research assistants.

0 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

and Im a professional geologist. I get a little pissed at how the YECs will try to argue and argue about points of science that have been disposed of by several convergent lines of evidence from different disciplines. PS, I dont see it as "batting against" unless someone begins using his bat as a weapon (whether intended or not). Theres room in a civil discussion for many POVs , even Spendi, our wandering correspondent, admits to a secure understanding of Darwin . He just likes to embellish his points until they are mostly unintelligible.

I do feel that it does more harm to teach CReationism and ID than not teaching these subjects at all. Its easier to teach the methods and results of science in a tabula rossa than it is to undo years of fairy tales and religious doggy poo.

If youre a naturalist trying to explain speciation and biogeography to a group of students, what means does a Creationist POV lend to the discussion?

PS, "Creationism" as a pseudo scientific discipline is taught at several parochial school systems throughout our country. Our Constitution forbids CREATIONISM to be taught "AS SCIENCE" in any science class that is funded with public money. It goes against the first Ammendment of our Constitution.
We have Creation teachings and discussions in all other classes , just not science.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

It certainly cannot be discussed, that is - the creation fairy story!

I am glad you are a geologist. You may agree that there are very good evidence for the Continental Shift Theory. I am just using it to make a point. I am neither going to contest it nor dispute anything on that count.

The theory may find favour based on cues, indications, signs, and even evidences. But if one asks a scientist to prove by showing proof, can we show the proof. I say thats the difficulty. But still it is accepted as it finds scientific favour. But no concrete proofs.

Similarly, there is no proof of the creation or Genesis story to have occurred as suggested. We all know that. At best it is remarkable imagination and creativity. But not any credibility, not in the 21st century.

When we pit two theories, one from the scientific field of enquiry and the other from the religious field of enquiry, we can be rest assured of how a 21st century child with the most average of intelligence will be able to decipher and analyse which of the two given theories are more accurate and credible theory, which can represent reality in a better form. It seems we are unduely worried about and undermine the genral intelligence of the present and future generation.

3 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Quote:

When we pit two theories, one from the scientific field of enquiry and the other from the religious field of enquiry, we can be rest assured of how a 21st century child with the most average of intelligence will be able to decipher and analyse which of the two given theories are more accurate and credible theory, which can represent reality in a better form. It seems we are unduely worried about and undermine the genral intelligence of the present and future generation.

Logic is learned. If we teach that both are the same how is a child to learn which has a better basis?
It should be obvious to you from reading this thread that children born in the 20th century can't tell which theory is more accurate and credible. Why do you think those in the 21st will be better informed if we teach them less?

0 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Quote:

But if one asks a scientist to prove by showing proof, can we show the proof. I say thats the difficulty. But still it is accepted as it finds scientific favour. But no concrete proofs.

Continental DRIFT, has been a theory underpinned by very strong evidence and even the measurable facts of continents splitting and rfting apart. (We can do this via stellites and surveying). As far as "concrete proof" Thats a mathematical construct. In most areas of science we evidence, falsify, make predictions and "dont disprove" a theory. (Its easy enough to disprove, thats what falsification does well). Using Continental Drift as an example, the "proof" is in the actual display of the earth splitting at the mid ocean ridges and plate boundaries."Seeing is proving". For other areas of science "proving" actually means that we can "prove that it works". Formal proofs are for geometry, not most sciences.

Quote:

we are unduely worried about and undermine the genral intelligence of the present and future generation

The only thing the First AMendment does is to assure that Congress shall not create a state religion. WHen we teach Creationism as SCIENCE, we are actually teaching a very narrow religious view of a small minority of all Fundamentalist Christian and Jewish sects. I dont give a rats ass about Creationsim or ID, its merely fun to try to argue with these folks. Hoqever, when they try to go "mainstream" in science, they are engaging in religious hucksterism.

1 Reply

This is what happens Jack whenever someone new appears on the thread. They all go back to square one and take the opportunity to recycle all the flattering things they can think of to boost their self esteem.

You will easily notice how your talking point concerning different worldly outlooks has been not so neatly sidestepped.

They are concerned about the intelligence of the up-coming generation because they have no confidence in it. All pedantic bigots are the same in that respect. It's as if without their guidance they will all become like lost sheep.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman......... i agree with you. Believe me i am on your side.

But, lets us not brush our past away. Religion is part of our evolutionary struggle. And to get out of our religious pas , there would be a struggle.
The problem definetely would be if Creationists insists on stating that it is a factual story. I can't imagine that an Educationist would be stupid enough to teach to contrary POV at the same time especially in the school stage.

Religious studies are taught to inculcate ethics in daily living. This is the emphasis, it can't insists on accuracy. Anyway, no child is bothered about accuracy. Only in the teens the child will try and comprehend the difference between the seed and the chaff.

Why ruin the Christmas Day of a 5 or 10 year old by accurately explaining the falsehood of the Santa Claus legend. For that matter we dont teach them how a baby is born, do we? well some may, not the most i know off.

2 Replies

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know