Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@spendius,

Have you tried wild apples fm?

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

It is not that I think it is wrong, it is just I disagree with the sheer enthusiasm of Atheists that here is the be all and end all of understanding how life developed

Oh so you really werent worried about the scientific, you are engaged in some attempt at arguing against atheism.

Well, theres nothing I can do in that arena ,either you do your work despite some supernatural being or else you argue that such a being is central to any understanding. In such a case the science is lost on the driveway.

I can understand that every precept of facts (and even the definition of "fact") is important to your thinking. Because for you, Its a holding action against evolutions "blind direction". Whenever the IDers propose a "scientific mechanism" that is "irreducibly complex" mere science dismantles it. I for one , dont feel like tying an entire belief system upon something that you feel will show central design or the prence of a deity.

So far, no harm has come of this base(and many important discoveries and scientific preparations have been made) using a naturalistic methodology.

wHERE AND WHY WOULD ONE EVEN BEGIN? AND IF YOU ANSWER THAT YOU DONT KNOW, what is even the point?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Isn't it a fact that biology throws up a wide range of "sports" and it is the physical environment that determines the "fittest". Thus it is geography and not biology that is the real subject.

Hence , that is why the recent swing to recognize the major role that adaptation plays as the environmenta ever change. SCience has only been able to decode these environmental , climatic, and edaphic factors through history andwe can see the pulses of life that responded to these changes. One need not "favor" one mechanism over any other, just as we see that all life is in a web of interconnection,its impossible to select one item over another.

Quote:

Evolution is passe. Geography, ecology and politics are the new determinants and, if all goes well, will dominate the future. Evolutionists are the new flat earthers.

Thats a rather simplistic mechanical view of everything. Why not spend more thought onthe interaction of all the sequential components of the environment through time and the organisms that travel through it. UNerstanding of evolution and the further development of the theory will never be passe. There is always some new horizon that is worth seeking. I like to study the evolution of the theory of evolution and its dependence on how modern thought responds to it. I find it fascinating that we are even in these culture wars since even the Fundamentalists are trying to adjust theor liturgy to the new facts.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Hence , that is why the recent swing to recognize the major role that adaptation plays as the environmenta ever change.

That's disingenuous fm. The environment is always changing. The natural change is slight and slow generally. The one effected by human activity, which is what I was talking about, is rapid by comparison. Europe was mainly forest not so long ago. In Darwin's time the England population was a mere 15 million or so and they moved about very little and consumed mainly food. The natural world made sense then more or less. 200 years earlier it made total sense.

Now the natural world is shrinking and the human world growing. Success in evolutionary terms is becoming more and more dependent on human choices. We are extruding nature. We don't talk about plastic much anymore. It's done and dusted. We talk about extrusions of it.

The specimens in evolution were extruded by geography. They would all be different had the geography been different. The mantis wouldn't have killed its groom if it was earning $200 grand a year and the shops were full of novelties.

Is it an aspect of irreducible complexity that the intelligent designer only allows free, unlimited energy distribution to the people who can handle it properly? As you think my theory that only Christianity could have discovered modern science is a load of bullshit which other society could it have been discovered in and, if so, how would it have handled it given its moral values. Are we handling it properly and do our moral values influence our handling? If you think you understand the flagellum run that through your noggin.

I know you can have your re-training camps to teach new values but they will be reflexes of the Pavlovian type and not real moral values. And possibly temporary reflexes at that. We might all need a two week booster course once a year or if we started acting funny earlier.

I think you evaded the issue. What does biology have to do with anything except improving health techniques by trial and error, and diet, and finding teachers something to teach and preferably something the kids don't understand so the teaching can be dragged out interminably.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I think the problems with teaching evolution are the extraordinary claims being made about it by Atheists. Most theists who are not fundamentalists accept it with only the caution required by science. Many Atheists on this and other threads claim evolution is a fact.

It is too complex and dependant on facts that may change to be considered a finish piece of work. There are areas that may be wrong, and major gaps are still to be filled in. We havent gone far with it and already there has been considerable debate as to exactly how the selection processes work. Many of these processes are not understood.

Engineering equations for common materials are facts but new materials need to be tested. We will never test evolution in the manner demanded of most sciences. We will, I hope, eventually finish all the work required to fill in the spaces and dot the "I's" and cross the "T's". But evolution is a work in progress. It is having these ridiculous claims made on it by both sides. This is bad science from the religious, but worse, it is bad science from scientists.

I consider evolution to be a strong solid theory that may one day, with added information, be a fact in itself despite its complexity. In the mean time, both sides would do well to recognise evolutions strengths and weaknesses.

4 Replies

@spendius,

You are the one who is disingenuous. You realize of course that the rapid expansion of the human population in a fashion almost like microorganisms is a very recent occurence. It has wrested massive changes on the environment , and species are adjusting or going extinct. QWe can place ourselves in the list of major motive forces.

I like a TV show called "Life AFter People" , it speculates as to what may happen in the near to mid term, and then it goes wild on speculating far out into geologic time.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

The theory of evolution is a scientific fact. It is such because it meets the criteria within science to be considered a fact. But it's important to recognize the boundaries of science in relation to this definition.

Nobody should claim that evolution is an "absolute" fact outside of science, because outside of science there are no rules to bound the definition of "fact".

When most people talk about evolution being a fact, I think it's implicit that they are recognizing that it's a "scientific fact", not an "absolute philosophical fact".

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

Many Atheists on this and other threads claim evolution is a fact.

The vast majority of biological ascientists claim that evolution is a fact. Many of them are quite religious

Quote:

Engineering equations for common materials are facts but new materials need to be tested. We will never test evolution in the manner demanded of most sciences.

This shows a poor understanding of both engineering and evolution. We teach "Structures of MAterials" in a fashion that is about 180 degrees different from "facts" available 100 years ago.

Quote:

I consider evolution to be a strong solid theory that may one day, with added information, be a fact in itself despite its complexity. In the mean time, both sides would do well to recognise evolutions strengths and weaknesses.

So, you are an "Afactic" when it comes to much science? Must you be there to verify zeta potentials so that every surface reaction on cell walls is valid?

3 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

It is too complex and dependant on facts that may change to be considered a finish piece of work.

Scientific theories do not need to be "finished" to be considered facts. Nor do they have to have all unknowns answered to be considered facts. They merely need to beat out all other theories based on the rules of science. If one theory stands above all others in that all evidence supports and no evidence contradicts, then it is considered a scientific fact until such time as a more accurate theory (or modification) can be demonstrated.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

You are the one who is disingenuous. You realize of course that the rapid expansion of the human population in a fashion almost like microorganisms is a very recent occurence.

How on earth am I being disingenuous. The rapid expansion of the human population and its activities was the point I was making. Which you have not answered again except by an assertion and instructing me about the very thing I was writing about.

I showed you to be disingenuous with your use of the phrase "the environmenta ever change" because it can't do anything else but change from moment to moment and everybody knows it and thus there's nothing been said except to try to associate my use of sudden and dramatic change with it and thus, hopefully from your point of view, if A2Kers are a bit dumb, de-fang it. That's what was disingenuous and I show why. You just assert as usual.

I moved from geograhy, including cosmology, being the extruding application to the mass of organic matter to human economic, political and moral forces taking over from that. With biological matter the plastic to be extruded.

TV shows are entertainment designed to sit certain coalitions in the seats in front of the ads.

If you can't answer my posts fm it is better if you don't try to.

2 Replies

@spendius,

BTW--you can work out the contents of the coalition by the nature of the ads if you know a bit of psychology. And they have worked out how to get round the prohibition of subliminals which they were always going to do.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

You sound a bit like the Dover defence there Io. Which took a dive.

As I know you're an anti-IDer it is no surprise.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

When most people talk about evolution being a fact, I think it's implicit that they are recognizing that it's a "scientific fact", not an "absolute philosophical fact".

ros sets the record straight but he knows full well that the distinction is soon forgotten and he fails to mention that there are sciences which don't recognise the social value of teaching certain "facts" even though they might allow them to be facts when thought of from a limited perspective. That is a circular one. Within the theoretical framework of evolution evolution is obviously a fact.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

The vast majority of biological ascientists claim that evolution is a fact. Many of them are quite religious.

We don't know whether they are religious or not. Their church might be simply a vehicle to promote their career or social standing. I'm not sure it is possible to be "quite" religious. Most people are quite law-abiding.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

http://religion.info/english/articles/article_487.shtml

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

How on earth am I being disingenuous. The rapid expansion of the human population and its activities was the point I was making.

NOPE , you missed the point that this is a relatively recent phenomenon. Therefore, the expansion of humankind represents a totally NEW kind of environmental pressure on species. Evolve, hybridize, adapt, or go extinct, .Pick two.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

We don't know whether they are religious or not. Their church might be simply a vehicle to promote their career or social standing.

. Yeh, its a conspiracy dont ya know.

. What a stupid statement, even as far as spendi-semi-sober -stupid- statements go.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

NOPE , you missed the point that this is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Yer what? Can't you read? I wrote--

Quote:

The natural change is slight and slow generally. The one effected by human activity, which is what I was talking about, is rapid by comparison. Europe was mainly forest not so long ago. In Darwin's time the England population was a mere 15 million or so and they moved about very little and consumed mainly food. The natural world made sense then more or less. 200 years earlier it made total sense.

My point was that it is a recent phenomenom. I had said--"In 200 years, a blink of the eye in evolution time." in the previous post. You tried that "last word" trick with re-training camps and HS let it bamboozle her. You need a door to slam behind you after the "last word" trick and you haven't got one here.

And you have not answered any of the points I raised.

What do you think of Swift's discussion of the relative merits of credulity and curiosity in Digression Concerning the Original, the Use, and Improvement of Madness in a Commonwealth and his characterisation of the Houyhnhnms in Gulliver? And I don't mean do you agree with him or not. I mean do you think he presented a case to answer? That he had a point. You don't seem to think the other side have a point probably based on the other side not being able to explain it to you for reasons I have mentioned in the past on numerous occasions. But they can always explain it at the ballot box. Or not in some areas where your sort of propaganda has neutralised them.

And then, as Dylan said--

"It's easy to see without looking too far
That not much
Is really sakeraaaaaaaaaaaade."

He usually glares meanly and slowly along the front row when he sings that line. I've seen him do it.

Is not your problem the selfsame with Nature as that of the gynaecologist with his area of curiosity? The poets are credulous creatures you know. Imagine writing about Widow Wadman scientifically.

0 Replies

What would Judge Jones have made of that fm? (Clear the court).

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Could we switch gears - new study out of Oxford suggests mammalian brains are getting larger because of social interactions (viz http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1332220/Dogs-smarter-cats-study-claims-Brainy-dogs-teach-aloof-cats.html?ito=feeds-newsxml ) >

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/11/23/article-0-0C31B845000005DC-878_233x328.jpg

> but considering that our own brains and cranial capacity have shrunk by at least a tenth since paleolithic times, should we worry? More info:

Quote:

Sociable mammals such as whales, dogs, dolphins and humans tend to have much larger brains compared to their bodies. Solitary species – such as tigers, domestic cats and rhinos – have less grey matter, the scientists found......Prof Robin Dunbar, co-author of the study, said: ‘For the first time, it has been possible to provide a genuine evolutionary time depth to the study of brain evolution.

4 Replies

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know