Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Your fear of stagnancy is unfounded. Scientists almost always look to improve on theories they have already concluded, and continue to do so. Science does change with technological breakthroughs and new information.

Can you identify any theory that hasn't gone through the scientific method of repeated experiments and confirmations?

At least we can agree that it's safe to have "faith in science." There's not much else man can objectively conclude as finite - or even come close.

My level of trust in science far exceeds most other fields of human knowledge.

Which fields of knowledge are the exceptions ci.?

My fear of stagnancy is founded. For evidence, I could present most of the posts in this thread.

Yes, scientists do look to improve on existing theories. However, they achieve this by finding where current theory falls short, and exploiting it. Therefore, improvement cannot be accomplished by saying that everything is "just alright" with the way it is. Improvement can be accomplished by looking at current theory and saying "what might be wrong" with the way it is. Furthermore, the really great scientists, that is, those that we call great because their contributions are set apart from the rest, are those that almost completely see the world differently than their peers.

That's also true with any career field and skills. I've learned that "thinking out of the box" is difficult for most people. Those gifted with imagination and ability to look beyond the norm are the ones who can accomplish much. Steve Jobs comes to mind.

I agree.

Mr Jobs presumably identified a growing demand which came about when people became unable to maintain a conversation with those they know due to growing egotism which was encouraged by Media for its own purposes. And that this manifestation did not asuage the need to have conversations and so strangers were to be co-opted to cater for it.

After that sort of insight it was a technological problem to create devices suitable for the purpose of making new friends at a rate previously unknown in history. The science behind the technology being the work of a succession of scientists going back to some mysterious starting point about 1,100 AD and self-evidently associated with the religion of the time in Gothic northern Europe which was itself a science with the human, social animal as its subject and on which all our other sciences were, and are, dependent.

But our baby science has got into long trousers these days and believes itself Big Cheese. Adolescence is like that for males.

What's the stagnation quotient on that df?

Ci. has been running on the spot for nigh on sixty years.

I've finally put spendi on Ignore. He knows nothing, admits nothing, commits nothing, and just overall provides bull shite and stupid questions.

It won't stop me responding to ci's not very subtle self praise of himself except that I will have to use the 3rd person instead of the 1st. As one does in gossiping.

THis thread started with a discussion about the way that "non science" is trying to invade biology classes in our public high schools. Thethread has grown beyond its original bounds based upon folks who come and go and add (or detract) from the original premise or wish to expand into more detailed areas of the underlying sciences.

There is no doubt that ignorance is the joy of all sciences. Hoqwever, i dont agree that, if we are worth our crafts, we should be looking to overturn existing theories. Most often, when existing theories get overturned, its not becaiuse of one "Aha" moment. Its usually done by a preponderence of evidence and experimental data.

Continental drift was not the"aha" brain child of Alfred Wegener (many others had said about the same thing he did many times before--He only said it at a conference). However, it wasnt until tools , such as analog magnetometers , subsurface mapping techniques or sonar,became available for other uses (like finding mines and submarines in WWII) that the data became available that developed the theory and its mechanisms.An entire generation generation of geologists just up and retired when the theory became obvious. Many of these guys had become "big guns" in platform and basin mechanics in oil and gas production. Consequently they would have to learn a new way of thinking and they just didnt want to expend the energy after a career in thinking a different way.

However, evolution isnt in any way seeming to have gaping holes in its workings. What still needs to be done is to define the Hows and the whens (not so much the whys , but that would be fun too).
Critical Thinking should always assume that the critical thinker has a basic platform from which to present counter evidence. AS it appears to me, "critical thinking" is merely a code word with which a minority of Fundamental Christians like to throw up a soil screen that is based upon poor logic, incporrect data, and often downright fraudulent analyses based solely on one religiously based interpretation of the history of life on this planet. That isnt science, its mythology.

There ya go. the only time he gets any attention is when someone else quotes him and his silly logic and run on disconnected prose.

If you are referring to Dover fm, as I presume you are, you are stretching credulity a little to far. As I understand it there was a proposal to read a few words to the kids at the beginning of the first lesson in the Biology year. To the general effect that Biology is not the be all and end all of everything and that said they could start their study of the subject.

That is a long way from "non science" invading the Biology classroom. So far in fact that I consider it a distortion of the truth.

The actuality of biology might well be the be all and end all of everything but the subject Biology isn't. And don't forget that a flagella critter was compared to a foot pump in sworn testimony. Or affirmed testimony.

Hey--did any witnesses swear on the Bible in JJ's court?

And you are trying to overturn an existing theory. That Christian thinking is necessary for a successful and orderly society without which there is anarchy and science gets thrown on the scrap heap along with everything else except animal urges. Persecuted even.

So if we shouldn't be looking to overturn existing theories what are you doing trying to overturn the overarching existing theory for? And using deceitful exaggerations like "invading biology classrooms", when nothing of the sort was proposed, to achieve an objective you just told us we should avoid.

The "whens" are not too difficult these days as long as 5 million year spreads are acceptable. The "whys" we can know nothing about. Nor the "whences". The "hows" are where the fun might be. But even with those a caveat ought to be read out to the students at the beginning of the course. How did the Venus of Willendorf morph into a glittering sequined stripper who can rotate the tassels on her tits in opposite directions. Biology can't account for that. If it can I would be much amused to have it explained to me.

The problem with spendi is simply he has no logic, nor any ability to research anything on the internet by himself. ergo, many stupid questions.

so we can enjoy the peace and quiet.
Now dont peek!!

I got wondering on the way home from the pub whether the DNA has self-consciousness. The selfish gene implies it to a certain extent.

What do you think fm?

Thank god. I'm surprised it took you this long to figure that out.

It's only common sense to put a twat like that on Ignore. ci. is to be congratulated. His wisdom is an example to you all.

Poor old ci. After what ros has just said he can't take me off Ignore. Nor can he peek. Either would mean ros thinking him completely stupid and, for once, getting something right.