How is this for a curve ball? I've had 2 different science teachers that taught us evolution, only to follow up their teachings with the reasons that evolution is false.
"If you look at Charles Darwin, he kinda look like a monkey"
"But see what they fail to tell you is that modern science doesn't know what bonds the 4 organic compounds together. The organization of a system is always decreasing, therefore evolution is false!"
"Is all of evolution correct? No, Is some? Yes, But all that means is that we figured out how God does it."
I've always found that a little weird.
what 4 organics are you talking about?
Miller, Anthropology and paleontology must be based on evolutionary science. To restrict all scientific findings to "intelligent design" or "creationism" ignores the natural dynamics of our study of this universe.
Look what has happened to stem cell research in tihs country, because a christian president limited the production of stem cells.
Hi farmerman: You are correct, what we do on our own time typically is not questioned by our supervisor or co-workers unless they are looking for an excuse to fire you. Most of us are not privy to the conversations that occur when our references are being checked. Even if you get in heated discussions with co-workers about creationism on company time, you will likely advance if you are incredibly valuable otherwise.
Each of those bricks you mentioned are described in several key papers written by the top scientists in those specialties. I have read none of these, likely you have read less than 1% on topics related to evolution. Even if we had carefully read all the papers could we testify that we knew with first hand knowledge? I think not.
The info I have on evolution is typically 4th or 5th hand. If you attended a top rated college, perhaps 3d or 4 th hand. Reasonable doubt is prudent, in view of one of these links likely hates religion. Neil
In my opinion, it is not late that evolution is taught after entering a college. Every topic in biology is (even if implicit) backed by the thought of evolution, and anyone taught biology in highschools would notice some kind of evolutionary trait of thinking.
What is important is not evolution itself (what the use of it for you) but the scientific way of thinking, and/or logical way of thinking grounded on experiences.
neil-sort of like statistics. If we have a population of evidence that shows all our models are correct AND no other models refute what we predict, then, even a 1% sampling would be significant. I have my professional journals include the Journal of Paleo. You can believe me or not, if there was even a slight suggestion that nat selection as a model were being refuted, this would be huge news. Scientists ,arent as cynical as you seem to imply. They loosely hold their theories lest some better one come along.
The argument that evolution is a Quasi religion is a bit of a reverse argument. The Craetionists start with their "BOOK" and then try to go to the field and see that their observations comport with their BOOK.
The field scientist goes out and finds stuff and then tries to fit it into a series of plausible hypotheses. In the last 10 years, intermediate forms of whhale fossils have pretty much sealed the "bud" evolution linneage of the cetaceans and there were many heated arguments that went back and forth about the "best fit" and whether there was anything significant at all. Another discovery of the thoracic gene segments called the Hox gene and its associated "complimentary "switching" genes and proteins made history about how body segments could have evolved. All this was done experimentally with mantids and drosophila. We live in exciting times
and, in my life, we may find out what was on Gods mind (just a little evolution joke)
Biochemistry is making great leaps into discovering self replicating organic compounds and protein segments.
I teach 2 courses this semester in econ geology and
sediment transport and mineral emplacement, Ive been using DNA markers for extremophilic bacteria for tracking metal laden vent waters , so my appreciation of the rigor that has gone into systematics in genetic marking is huge. Im not willing to be as accomodating toward any hypotheses that havent been vetted with at least as much rigor as the principle sciences that have underpinned evolution, and, I sure as hell wont stand by and let my kids be "dummed down" just to pacify a bunch of Creationists whose only game is to make the entire biological and geological sciences a moral stand as opposed to an intellectual journey.
I dont, nor does anyone, deny anyone else the right to believe anything they want. JUST DONT FEEL THAT GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO FOIST THEIR DOGMA ON OUR SORRY EDUCATION SYSTEM.
Im sorry to say this but , Ive found that some secondary teachers are among the least capable people to teach the sciences, but thats another discussion
CI_YES YES YES, what you say is the very heart of this entire debate in the various states. Its only that evolution is the cause celebre for now, but the processes of how the scientific method and the use of evidence and data are organized , THAT is the entire point indeed. to give up and give in would be a disaster. wed start a slow return to the more basic units of science like chemistry, after all, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is invalid if evolution is true (according to Duane gish), Or radiochemistry is invalid because atomic clocks had to change significantly during deep time. Its a slippery slope to complete comforting ignorance
Yeah, farmerman! I would've said the same thing if I were educated enough to have the right to say it.
And that's an "amen" from me!
Last point an ill sheddup. My own personal feeling is that "No child left behind means that no smart kids can leap ahead lest they do it themselves'
farmerman, I don't know about you, but I never belived in Bush's "Leave no child behind" initiative, because all children learn at diffferent rates and skills. What has really happened in California is that many communities are closing down schools for lack of funding. Bush's "Leave no child behind" has transformed into a "Leave no school behind." The federal government shouldn't be mandating performance standards if they are unwilling to fund it with m-o-n-e-y.
Well Spake Farmerman.
CI,
Also consider not only the fate of embryonic matter but I also understand that in the state colleges of Missouri USA it is now illegal to show photographs of human genitalia, masturbation, or pornography (you define it) in a class on "Human Sexuality" leading to a degree in Social Work.
I caught that debate on the National Public Radio "Justice Talking" radio show.
Sorry I can't provide a link.
Kind of makes you wonder what happens if you get a urinary tract infection. The Urologist may never have seen a normal one before
.
"You mean it's not supposed to be all hot and red and swollen down there
" " Maybe youv'e just got a dirty mind."
The discussion of what makes a good education is the interesting problem. What makes good science is not as interesting to me.
I have no doubts that evolution is the best scientific theory. Neil, you may have misunderstood my point. I have studied the evidence and the "creationist" theories don't have a leg to stand on as scientific theories.
I still think we need to respect them as part of a culture.
Public high schools are public institutions. They are mandatory and they are there to serve their communities. An educator with a confrontational attitude toward the community he serves will not be effective.
People here tend to have reflex reactions toward Christianity here. So I want people to respond to my Navajo example.
Modern science threatens the cultural beliefs and religion of the Navajo. My friend told me that it was wrong for teachers to tell them their elders were wrong.
There are young people who will choose to hold to their culture - even intellectually- and reject what science teaches. These people will live a fulfilled life within their culture. They won't have careers in science, but most of us don't. Is this a bad decision?
So what will a good educator do?
An public educator is there to serve a community. A high school teacher should not be about forcing students to conform to modern science. To some this is not nearly as important as supporting ones beliefs or customs.
Don't get me wrong - The ideas of evolution should be taught and the reasons we believe it is true should certainly be presented. In science education the *whys* are always more important than the *whats*.
But my point is that a good educator will be very sensitive to the needs of the communities they serve.
During adolescence each student is forming an identity that will be made up of the influences around her. This includes their culture, their parents their peer and educators. Ideally these groups will work together to produce individuals that can be productive and fulfilled in their world.
The educator is just a part of this process. I feel it is bad thing if a teacher sets himself in a confrontational position in his community.
----------------
"We Navajo believe we come from the ground, so our chests are smooth. You white people believe you came from apes..."
- (Ahumorous comment made by a Navajo man I interviewed for a research project.)
ebrown, All well and good, except most of the 'confrontation' is brought about by religious groups.
perhaps the navajo just do not wish to be part of scientific discovery or to pursue the sciences as a profession. Mores the pity. If science must be taught as 'we believe" then its not a scholarly pursuit until that phrase is supplanted with 'our data shows"
I had been preent at some navajo councils to discuss these piles of uranium mill tailings that reside on their lands. the consensus process was one of cautious deliberation and respect. There were many spokesmen for the govts position and spokesmen for the navajo nation. I was impressed that with every meeting people brought food and we ate and discussed. cool.
The thing that disturbs me most about "education" and determining what shall be taught is the fact that most students grow up to be voters.
Sometimes the "thinking-reasoning community" is just a little too polite (politically correct) in our interactions with the "religious-fantastic" community.
I freely admit that that is only my opinion. Perhaps humanity would be better off if we gave the Popes, Imams and Spiritulists free rein (or reign as the case may be). Personally, I doubt it but I may be wrong.
The problem with education today is that most administrators of our schools have forgotten the basics, the three r's. In our generation, growing up on the wrong side of the tracks in Sacramento, California, we were composed of minorities with very few whites (if any) except for our teachers. I attended our 50th junior high school reunion last September, and most have accomplished the American dream. One Chinese guy gave a speech, and what he said was so true (in a joking way). He said that he didn't know what a white guy looked like until he went to high school. Our classmates became doctors, lawyers, teachers, writers, nurses, accountants, salesmen, business owners, government employees, and a politician (my brother is now a state legislator). Our schools have forgotten how to teach the necessary tools to maximize our student's goals in life. Many can't even fill out a job application. How sad.
Jeez C. I. youve now made my day. i am always impressed as to how dummed down the education industry has made the curricula.
i tell a story at some of our evolution/creation debates before state ed boards and I use the Mcdonalds model. We have quit teaching the skills of mathematics to such a degree that , we no longer worry about abstract math like calculus, we have kids that are so dumb that Mcdonalds puts pictures of the sammiches that they sell on the cash registers so the little dears can enter the prices and make change automatically
enter---cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger
enter--- Pepsi (no Pepsi, only coke)
enter --- 10 dollars
answer -- 6.50 change
I sometimes give the kids weird denominations just to fry their meat computers
Coupla years back when I was using the same train station as that for one of our Universities there must have been a bit of revivalist thing happening. These students all turned up wearing T-shirts with a take-off of the 'Absolut' logo, only that god/Jesus/christianity is the 'absolute' - weedy little nerds could've all done with a coupla bottles of the real stuff and a bit of gratuitious nudity and sex. Might have reprogrammed their 'meat computers', but I digress.
Now the Uni teaches a lot of stuff and some of it is hard science. Engineering, chemistry, nuclear, not just economics and teasing rats in mazes. I kept thinking that the basis for such concepts as evolution relies on evidence and observations from every branch of science. At one point it would have just been natural history, but now you woudl be using every kind of measuring tool for the physical world to explain phenonoma such as the 'Big Bang', life originating from simple compounds, continental drift, and speciation.
So what did our 'Absoluters' do when they were confronted with the contribution their chosen field makes to a rational, humanistic world? Ask to be excused? Argue the point with their lecturer? What did they write in their assignments and exams?
"Carbon decays at a given rate of xxx per millenium, except when found with fossils, because the earth is only 6,000 years old".
"Coal measures were laid down as the result of the Flood occuring all over the planet at the same time. This is also why there are fossils of sea-creatures at the top of the Himalayas".
"All living creatures share about 90% of the same genetic material. The genome of man and chimpanzee is more or less identical, excepting the fact that Man was created separately through Divine Will".
