Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Where to begin? There is so much discussion on this topic that I will add just a few comments. I believe that science and religion can dwell together with one supporting the other, and until one is proved to be unequivocally true, then why not teach both theories of evolution.
Science has not been able to solve the problems, or even still to answer some of the mysteries, facing mankind, and how are so-called miracles explained - usually a doctor or others will just say, "Well that was a miracle!" But maybe the "miracle" can be explained metaphysically, according to spiritual laws, maybe there is a God who is watching over His creation. Why discount that until it can be proven untrue or at least until science has an answer for everything and can solve all problems? Why close the door just because we can't "see" it with our eyes?
If prayer is used according to what might be called "spiritual laws", and thousands of people have been healed through prayer, then why not give it a place in our wonderings about the nature of things. Even Einstein attributes some of his ideas to a greater power.

3 Replies

@Schofield,

They have to discount God. Their lives have no morality unless you believe in the science of being a selfish slob.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

Are you aware law varies between the states of the USA, and that lawyers pass bar exams in states both within Australia and the USA ? That the laws between all the states and their commonwealth in Australia, UK and USA have laws that say different things but have a very common aim and a very similar effect ?

You must recognize that ALL laws that were derived from the US Constitution , are administered by the Federqal judiciary. The Dover case was a case brought under the US Constitution and only a minor portion was under the Pa Commonwealth Constitution , hence it was a trial in a Federal District (not local) court. The Fed district and the US Supreme courts have jurisidction over issues that are Constitutional, so that there are no local "varietals" of things like Civil Rights, treason, TAxes, immigration etc. These laws are supposed to be administered uniformly throughout the nation.

2 Replies

@Schofield,

Schofield wrote:

I believe that science and religion can dwell together with one supporting the other, and until one is proved to be unequivocally true, then why not teach both theories of evolution.

All the confusion . . . where to begin? What "both" theories? What theory do you refer to which you consider an alternative to evolution? Are you, as so many religiously motivated people are, referring to a creation, to cosmic origins? Because if you are, that has nothing to do with a theory of evolution. Evolutionary biology doesn't "care" how life arose--it is only concerned with what happens after life comes into existence. Or are you plumping for one or more special creations? If that is the case, how can you call it a theory unless you offer evidence, and propose an hypothesis which is testable, falsifiable and successfully predictive? I'd say you're way out of your depth here.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

In support of the above statement by Set:
While religion and science can certainly coexist in the world , religion gets no "free pass" in its demands that "Intelligent Design" be considered a theory of science, its not. Its merely a way for a small minority of Fundamentalist Christians,Jews, and Muslims to have their dogma taught as science within US public schools.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

You must recognize that ALL laws that were derived from the US Constitution , are administered by the Federqal judiciary.

What you need to do fm is study something like Michel Foucault's Archaeology of Knowledge and get a handle on mouldering old documents written for a thinly spread population of sod-busting, muzzle loaders with a tendency to inbreeding, ethnic cleansing and lynching written by an elite in an exclusive language only they understood.

The fact that Judge Jones is a constitutional expert, as you might have seen in the video I posted, is bound to cause him to give undue emphasis to his speciality and especially for an audience of people hoping to become equally familiar with the territory so they can wow hoi polloi and have power over it. If Mrs Palin & Co exploit the natural resistance to that sort of thing efficiently the judge will have done his bit to bring Tea Party government to the US. The sort of unintended consequence you never imagine as you sail blissfully onwards as though there is nobody who might react to your ideas.

Science has now come up with a new fangled test, costing £125 000 but said to be reducible with economies of scale to £2,000, to discover a large number of the characteristics of embryos and predicting the future of the life they will become if allowed to proceed in the natural course of events. Which, of course, is the eugenics you are all in favour of as you cannot avoid being by your own logic. The designed human being and evolution's diversity inhibited and thus an internal contradiction in your position. No more people of average intelligence. Everybody as brainy as you and Setanta and as good looking.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

What theory do you refer to which you consider an alternative to evolution?

There are theories involving the psychosomatic realm and emotional determinations of physiology which religious belief addresses. There's the economic theory of women's dress. There are many theories concerning rituals and ceremonies. There's Steiner's theory of "real presences".

And there's the "Ostrich theory" which says that if you put you head in the sand you are saved from anxiety.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

You must recognize that ALL laws that were derived from the US Constitution , are administered by the Federqal judiciary.

That is not only true for the USA but similar sytems exist in UK and Oz. The point is a little belaboured by now, but I wanted to simply say that a resident of other English speaking countries can not be excluded on the basis of where they live because they may have more than a layman's knowledge of law whereas a resident of the USA may have none. I am prepared to listen to all opinions and see if they have a point which includes Spendi. things like "Any opinion , authored by spendius regarding US jurisprudence, is a wild guess at best" is neither helpful nor accurate given your knowledge of the law.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

to have their dogma taught as science within US public schools.

The rest of us have the same problem. It is not only the USA. We have a work around where religion is taught as an optional subject but is not allowed to be taught as science and science is not allowed to say religion is wrong. My kids attend such a religious class and I am monitoring what is said. One seems to be going religious and the other not. But I believe both will benefit. All knowledge is useful.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

I am prepared to listen to all opinions and see if they have a point which includes Spendi. things like "Any opinion , authored by spendius regarding US jurisprudence, is a wild guess at best" is neither helpful nor accurate given your knowledge of the law.

Oh it is very accurate.One of the reasons that I had been ignoring spendi is his ignorant continued insistance that he speaks from a basis of intelligence re US courts. He doesnt, That has nothing to do with his country of residence.He can just as easily download many sources to read the law, he just refuses to do so. Its been a continued harangue by him as if spouting the same argument over and over will somehow change the outcome. It wont. He tries to cobble together arguments that , while they may sound cogent to an outsider, are mere gobbledegook to those of us who live under our system.
I should, no doubt , just return him to the ignore category since hos arguments havent acquired any additional understanding. He seems to be stuck on a few incorrect precepts and wont move on from there.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I'm stuck on human nature. Constitutional law is an ephemeral thing. It's the servant of the power elite. I think it was Parnell who said that there are stronger things than parliamentary majorities. No doubt speaking in a true evolutionary vein.

Human nature has voted for religious beliefs. Collected money for them. In vast amounts. Our human nature worships the ceremonies, the music and dance, the archaeology, the sport and the life which has derived from the Christian set of beliefs. Whatever the negative aspects which you always focus upon. How else do you explain your instant recognition of forms of art derived from different sets of belief?

We are in D.H. Lawrence territory. The blood under attack. And Spengler-land. Money versus the blood. One might easily read both backwards and come to the conclusion that the blood is under attack and that the trends show that it is good business to be on the attacking side. But you must know, as a scientist, that trends keep going and if this one does the money will defeat the blood and we will all end up perfectly formed zombies with our emotions at the level at which the cliched screen scientist is usually shown to have. Which one might say, if only to provoke a smile on the face of a cynic, is that level appertaining when his pretty scientific assistant lowers his underpants in order to apply for the next promotion. Which is all very well I suppose if the interview lasts all day. But, alas, it doesn't.

You won't get me onto your ground fm. This is an intellectual thread. You only need look at the threadmaster's photograph to see that. It's not a "pushing your own boat out" thread.

There was an intellectual arrogance I thought, almost strutting, in Judge Jones's performance at the gig. At one point I got thinking that he couldn't imagine anyone not having the same excellencies he is blessed with. He seemed to be unmindful of the logistics which had created the theatre and presented it that day, another one tomorrow maybe, in so ideal a state for his display. One might easily write a very long running on paragraph about those logistics but I'm sure readers can conjure up some version for themselves which wouldn't be much different than mine so there's little point in my bothering with it. Suffice to say that if it isn't extremely long it shows a similar ignorance of them as I felt Judge Jones did.

0 Replies

@Schofield,

Schofield wrote:

I believe that science and religion can dwell together ....and until one is proved to be unequivocally true...

Welcome to our website. This is a science thread. The Foucault you see cited on this page is quoted here by mistake; he's Michel Foucault, the philosopher, and whatever the merits of his theories they can never be proved "unequivocally true". Or unequivocally false, for that matter. Religion belongs to that class of theories. Now Léon Foucault, the physicist, also had theories, one of which concerned the rotation of the earth; he built a pendulum to demonstrate it. His theory is proved to be unequivocally true: his pendulum works. Reliably. Every time. In all latitudes. See the difference?

1 Reply

@High Seas,

That's all very well HS but if we exclusively follow your Leon will we end up going "tick-tock" in a steady rhythm all the time and in all latitudes?

I think it is true what my Michel says about mouldering old documents being really only relevant to the time and place they were written. And that as time passes generations of experts apply deliberate operations to the documents which are not a part of the original quality of them.

And I have to agree such things don't happen in every time and in all latitudes. It would never have entered the head, for example, of the model for the Venus of Willendorf statuette. Or any of the Tierra-del-Fuegians Darwin met. Or even your average taxi-driver.

But they all would know whether going "tick-tock" in a steady rhythm all the time and in all latitudes was any good. I think. Some anti-IDers have tick-tocked their way through this thread. Which is bound to happen when you have No-Go areas.

My Michel is on a level your Leon cannot reach.

Has any other culture ever had any archaeology?

0 Replies

Not that I want to deal with spendius but this survey which originated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science and was made available by the Pew Center for People and the Press shows most scientists accept evolution as true and accurate:

http://people-press.org/report/528/

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Nobody wants to deal with Spendius, but I wonder if the result in the Pew poll would change as function of question format. E.g. it took much back-and-forth on this thread until Ionus was finally clear he didn't object to evolution per se, only to some aspects similar to those listed in this review:

Quote:

....the old argument that Stephen Jay Gould had with Mr Dawkins, about how smoothly evolution progresses. Gould, a palaeontologist, observed that there are long periods of stasis in the fossil record, which is true, and inferred from this that selfish genery is therefore wrong because it predicts continual change, which is questionable. It is just as plausible that selfish genery arrives rapidly at optimal designs, and that these shift only when what is optimal alters because, say, the environment has changed..

http://www.economist.com/node/14082089

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

They have to discount God. Their lives have no morality unless you believe in the science of being a selfish slob.

Well at least I think some such distinction as I just quoted is what you had in mind. Possibly I'm mistaken. It's a good book review anyway.

0 Replies

LOUISIANA UPDATE

Quote:

BESE approves new biology textbooks
(Associated Press, December 9, 2010)

New high school biology textbooks will be available to public school districts after getting approval from the state education board.

Backing from the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education came Thursday despite complaints from opponents of the theory of evolution.

It's the first time new books for biology and environmental science classes have been approved since 2002. BESE approval, which came in an 8-2 vote, doesn't mean immediate distribution of new textbooks. Local school districts decide when and how to purchase books.

Opponents of the books say the texts fail to explain scientific disagreements over evolution and teach evolution without encouraging criticism or debate.

Supporters of the new books claimed critics were trying to force religious issues into science classrooms.

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

A positive step.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Towards tick-tock pendulum mankind if HS's scientific advice is all there is. But one step doesn't count for much these days. The other side see it.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Flopping like a fish on the bank.

0 Replies

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know