97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
spendius
 
  2  
Sun 24 Aug, 2008 03:04 pm
@rosborne979,
cop out ros.

White flag really but you wouldn't understand why and to explain why it would be necessary to corrupt and scandalize your pretty little puritanical mindset and I have no wish to do that. You might consider desisting from your infantile attacks on those who are doing their best to get through the theological muddles caused by mass migration of workers from the country into the city and from different traditional backgrounds. Which is not to imply there are not other important factors.

Schools are for socialisation. For fitting the whole range of skills and aptitudes for future roles. Not just those like you with exceedingly high IQs and a favourable start in life.

They are not run to fit in with your simplistic dogmas.

Would you like me to offer a few choice selections from "how biology works" in those areas of most interest to adolescents who can feel the biology working within themselves. The evolved biology I mean.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Sun 24 Aug, 2008 03:08 pm
@spendius,
spendi, Give it a shot; I'm interested in hearing your theory about human evolution.
gungasnake
 
  2  
Sun 24 Aug, 2008 03:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
spendi, Give it a shot; I'm interested in hearing your theory about human evolution.

There ISN'T ANY theory of human evolution any more. Actual DNA studies have ruled out the neanderthal as a plausible ancestor for modern man, genetic gulf too wide, and all other hominids were significantly further removed from us than the neanderthal. To go on believing that we evolved from any sort of hominids you'd have to produce some new hominid closer to us in both time and morphology THAN the neanderthal and the works and remains of that creature would be all over the map and easy to find had he ever existed.

The basic reality is that there is nothing on this planet from which we could have evolved. You have three basic choices:

1. Modern man was created here from scratch, recently

2. Modern man was imported from elsewhere in the cosmos

3. Modern man was genetically re-engineered from one of the hominids, most likely the neanderthal

But the idea of modern man evolving is not workable at all.



rosborne979
 
  2  
Sun 24 Aug, 2008 04:28 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
The basic reality is that there is nothing on this planet from which we could have evolved. You have three basic choices:
1. Modern man was created here from scratch, recently

Poofism
Quote:
2. Modern man was imported from elsewhere in the cosmos

Alien-Techno-Poofism
Quote:
3. Modern man was genetically re-engineered from one of the hominids, most likely the neanderthal

Alien-Genetic-Poofism (yeh, most likely with the neanderthal, right)
Quote:
But the idea of modern man evolving is not workable at all.

Well, thank god we have your reliable word on such matters to keep us all informed. Those damned scientists can't be trusted, all they do is study all the time and produce reasonable, testable, informative and functional theories. Those idiots.
spendius
 
  1  
Sun 24 Aug, 2008 04:35 pm
@gungasnake,
gunga wrote-

Quote:
There ISN'T ANY theory of human evolution any more.


It isn't often that I agree with something said on this thread but I will agree with that.

If anti-IDers wish to gaze at their tropical fish tanks and weave self-flattering theories about themselves what am I supposed to do about it. I'm a wanker for ****'s sake.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  2  
Sun 24 Aug, 2008 04:48 pm
@rosborne979,
ros wrote-

Quote:
Well, thank god we have your reliable word on such matters to keep us all informed. Those damned scientists can't be trusted, all they do is study all the time and produce reasonable, testable, informative and functional theories. Those idiots.


That is incorrect from a scientific point of view.

That is not "all they do". They go for a **** once a day for a start. Hopefully.

And they watch us poets and dreamers waltz off with the the best chicks. And evolution science says that you can't get past that no matter how many Higgs' bosuns you can dream up. The next best chicks you are welcome to.

Be my guest.

If you get as far as Elton John take up Fortification Science like Uncle Toby in Tristram Shandy.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Sun 24 Aug, 2008 05:39 pm
@spendius,
What I'm claiming is that Too Remote to be Ancestral to is what mathematicians would call a transitive relationship, i.e. that if the neanderthal is too remote to be ancestral to us, and all other hominids are MORE remote from us than the neanderthal, than NONE of them are possible ancestors for modern humans.

This has nothing to do with religion; all we're talking about here is basic logic like they used to teach freshmen in colleges.
0 Replies
 
Vengoropatubus
 
  2  
Mon 25 Aug, 2008 12:28 am
@gungasnake,
I'd like to see a cite for your "Actual DNA studies have ruled out the neanderthal as a plausible ancestor for modern man, genetic gulf too wide, and all other hominids were significantly further removed from us than the neanderthal."
gungasnake
 
  2  
Mon 25 Aug, 2008 06:06 am
@Vengoropatubus,
Neanderthal DNA is generally said to be about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee. Articles referring to the lack of any evidence of a neanderthal contribution to our own genetic makeup are fairly easy to find:

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020057&ct=1

http://www.qiji.cn/eprint/abs/881.html

http://www.expressindia.com/news/fe/daily/19970712/19355423.html

Quote:
He said his team ran four separate tests for authenticity - checking whether other amino acids had survived, making sure the DNA sequences they found did not exist in modern humans, making sure the DNA could be replicated in their own lab and then getting other labs to duplicate their results. Comparisons with the DNA of modern humans and of apes showed the Neanderthal was about halfway between a modern human and a chimpanzee.


The logical conclusion which I draw is mine and you won't find it amongst mainstream science papers; the people writing those papers are all financially locked into a certain evolutionary paradigm and none of them want to face the obvoius logic of the situation.

The fact that the neanderthal is the closest hominid to us is not disputed. Nonetheless the claim you will find in some of these papers is that both we and the neanderthal must be descended from some more remote ancestor.

That's basically idiotic. It's like claiming that dogs could not be descended from wolves, and that therefore they must be descended directly from fish.

wandeljw
 
  2  
Mon 25 Aug, 2008 08:36 am
Quote:
Report on the Sixth International Conference on Creationism, Part Three
(by Jason Rosenhouse, ScienceBlogs.com, August 24, 2008)

An interesting exchange took place during the Q and A of a talk entitled “Georgia Public School Board Members' Beliefs Concerning the Inclusion of Creationism in the Science Curriculum.” The speaker was Kathie Morgan of LIberty University.

The talk itself was unremarkable, even by the crushingly low standards of creationist scholarship. The premise was that there are ways of bringing creationism into the classroom, in the form of supplementary materials beyond what the state requirements mandate, that do not run afoul of any Supreme Court rulings. Morgan and her colleagues decided to investigate the relationship between the personal beliefs of school board members, and their receptivity to the idea of bringing creationism into the science classroom.

A look at their paper reveals that they used a random sample of 144 people out of one thousand thirty-four board members. These folks were then sent a survey, which was answered by 66, or forty-six percent of the people.

Pretty thin gruel for a serious statistical study, but since their conclusions were so thoroughly unremarkable (turns out that young-Earthers are more receptive than old-Earthers to including creationism in the classroom), I'm not inclined to quibble with them.

I had intended to remain quiet during the Q and A. The only part of the talk that provoked a raised eyebrow from me was when Morgan actually opened her talk with a prayer, and, besides, I didn't feel it was my job to challenge every bit of nonsense to come down the road. But then an enthusiastic young woman identifying herself as affiliated with the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School got up and unleashed the following:
"We were just denied the right to grant degrees in the state of Texas, because we were considered to be fraudulent by teaching creation science. I don't think Christians understand the depth of the stronghold evolutionists have in our system. They have engineered things to stop anything that we say, to report anything that we say. I was just reading an article that said that people's faith, their belief , and their commitment to their belief is what makes the difference in whether or not they will accept what teachers teach about evolution. So I think we need to look at our churches and start really building up our kids so that their faith is strong. And then I'm also thinking about the idea that these scientists that looked at our program said that we don't use inquiry. Boy, I wish they would come to this conference because they would see that we do scientific inquiry. And I just think that we need to step forward so that we can stand up for what we know is right. I don't know if you realize that the National Science Teachers Association even has a list of questions and answers for the teachers supposed to give to students if they bring up religion in the classroom. That it's just a myth, that we're not talking about our religious beliefs when we talk about creation and that we need to move on to what is true science. And they so indoctrinate kids that it's also destroying their faith in the end because they are told that what they believe is not true.
And this to me is another thing we need to look into. It's almost like Hitler's time. It's almost like we are being so indoctrinated, and our teachers are being taught, in our state schools, the answers to give when students ask questions. And furthermore it's in our state objectives we are supposed to be able to teach both the weaknesses and strengths of evolution, but there's hardly anyone who knows the weaknesses of evolution because nobody teaches it. And we need to get people together and have a plan in place for the education system, so we can move forward. ACLU can put out all these little fires all over the place just like in Georgia. They see something come up and they send a bunch of their Gestapo people there to thwart whatever is going on. And we need to have some sort of meeting of educators so we can start doing something about it."


Oh bruh - ther. Couldn't let that one slide. I don't know what she was talking about regarding the NSTA, but those Hitler comparisons really bug me. So I got in line at the microphone and after waiting patiently for a few other questioners to finish (one of whom was eager to inform us that Darwinists know they have no data to refute all the evidence of a young Earth presented at the conference's opening presentation, and rely on such repressive tactics to cover up this lack) I offered the following:
"I don't really have a question but I would like to make a comment to the speaker a few questioners ago. I would request that you not make such casual comparisons to Hitler. When you're forced to wear yellow stars as a prelude to getting rounded up into train cars and the rest of it, then you can compare your situation to Hitler. And don't liken the ACLU to the Gestapo. These are people who are filing lawsuits in a legal proceeding to protest what they believe are violations of civil rights, and these lawsuits then get adjudicated in a lawful process. That ain't the Gestapo. So I would ask that you tone it down a little bit. "

The woman looked somewhat abashed as I said this. Less impressed was Jerry Bergman, who got up to speak after me. True connoisseurs of creationism will recognize the name, since he is something of a celebrity among the young-Earthers. Here's what he had to say:
"Let me respond to that. I just finished a book called Slaughter of the Dissidents, with the subtitle The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters. It's three volumes, fifteen hundred pages. I interviewed hundreds of people whose careers were ended, they ended up in divorce and suicide, quite a few suicides. There's quite a bit of physical violence, people who have been beaten up. And it's true, you're point is well-taken ..."

At this point I called out from the audience: "You're comparing that to six million people who lost their lives."

Bergman continued:
"That's true, we're not being put into concentration camps. But I know people who have not worked in twenty years. I know a person with two doctoral degrees who has been unable to find work in fifteen years. It's pressing, doing this. It's very pressing, my wife won't read it, she proofs most everything I do and she will not read this becuase she says it's too depressing as to what's going on. It really is, in many ways we're faced with enormous opposition and I see it as getting worse. I hope not, I hope I'm wrong. But pick up my book it shoud be at the printer this week and if you want information about it I'll be glad to give it to you.
But it's really a major problem, and the Darwinists are really getting vicious, they really are. We are, I would say, following the history of Nazi Germany. They went through four periods of persecution against the Jews specifically, we're in the second period in this country. And it's true we have two more to go and I hope it doesn't go there, but it's edging up there especially when you realize what happens in the lives of these people. And it's a huge waste of resources. What bothers me most is how vicious the Darwinists are. Really, really vicious people. I'd love to argue about this and I don't like to talk so much with people who agree with me. I'd rather talk to people who disagree with me. It's far more invigorating. And I've found you can't dialogue with Darwinists by and large. You just can't do it. It's a barrage of name-calling. Up on the platform I have several times literally had people come up on the stage and try to pull me off the stage. I've had people threaten my work. The college is getting tired of people calling, the college where I teach at, of trying to get me fired. They're tired of it, it happens so often. Fortunatly they defended me. But many schools, like Gonzales, one reason he lost his career was because the college got tired of people calling up and saying you've got to fire this guy because he's an ID supporter. He's a theistic evolutionist, by the way. They can't even deal with theistic evolutionists they only can accept more and more atheists. So I'm glad we have Liberty University around, we've got a few schools, so read what's going on and you won't have such a benign opinion about what's happening. It's really frightening."


I think it would take three volumes and fifteen hundred pages just to catalog the crazy in that melodramatic soliloquy. A person defending Hitler and Gestapo comparisons complaining about vicious name-calling? A person who thinks Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure in any measure because his school was receiving hostile phone calls telling us about the state of affairs in academe? Please.

I was tempted to get up again to reply, but the moderator stepped in to inform us that time was fast running out, and that only the people already standing would have a chance to ask their questions. Probably for the best. I have a general policy at these gatherings of saying my piece and then shutting up, regardless of what provocation comes down the road. Better to look calm and undistrubed than to seem shrill and obnoxious.

The original questioner got up and sort of apologized: "I just wanted to comment, because, you're right, I made statements that were very strong. But you know what, I think we are going to have to wake up, and we're asleep."

Then it was off to the races for several minutes of reiteration of what she said previously. The way she said “you're right” suggested that she wished she hadn't availed herself of such hyperbole, but otherwise she stood by everything she said.

After the talk several people thanked me for having raised the issue. Indeed, on several occasions people later stopped me in the hall to tell me they agreed with the point I had raised. One elderly gentleman commended my statement. Then he went on to tell me that it's clear the Darwinists are not interested in promoting science, because they sued over the Cobb County sticker, and that sticker only called for students to think critically about evolution. It said nothing about creationism.

I replied that he had it backward. It was clear that the school board was not interested in promoting critical thinking, because they were offered a compromise sticker that would have told students to be critical and skeptical of all scientific theories, not just evolution. That sticker was rejected, proving that the board's interest was in singling out evolution for special treatment, which could have only a religious and not a scientific motive.

The conversation quickly turned to other matters.
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 25 Aug, 2008 09:12 am
@gungasnake,
gunga wrote-

Quote:
the people writing those papers are all financially locked into a certain evolutionary paradigm and none of them want to face the obvoius logic of the situation.


The problem is gunga that they can say the very same thing about the anti-evolutionary position and when one looks at the lifestyle of those most to the fore in presenting that position they are difficult to contradict.

If we assume that you, as an American of the right, are not against looking out for one's finances you have conceded their case I'm afraid.

There is no obvious logic to any situation. All is vanity isn't it?

I hope you don't think that it is not vanity that motivates every person whose name appears in every one of wande's cut and pasters.

One really ought not to imply purity of motive in oneself simply by drawing attention to alleged impurity of motive in others.
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 25 Aug, 2008 09:19 am
@spendius,
As you can see gunga, Mr Rosenhouse falls into the same error with his phrase-

Quote:
crushingly low standards of creationist scholarship


which is basically self praise and, needless to say, thus justifies the reader abandoning his drivel forthwith.

I can't imagine what wande thinks he is doing cluttering up his own thread with such dross. Maybe it feeds his vanity.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Mon 25 Aug, 2008 10:58 am
@wandeljw,
Quote:
Report on the Sixth International Conference on Creationism, Part Three (by Jason Rosenhouse, ScienceBlogs.com, August 24, 2008)

Jason is a trooper, I don't know how he can stand the inanity for so long.

spendius
 
  1  
Mon 25 Aug, 2008 12:38 pm
@rosborne979,
He loves it ros and for the same reasons you do.

You have both allied your self-esteem to the cause for reasons we can only guess at. Science has nothing to do with it. No scientific mind would ever dream of writing your last post. It's so girlie. Or any of your other ones.

Basically its become your self esteem you are both defending. As when a similar alliance is made with a football team.

You can't even use a word like "trooper" properly.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  4  
Tue 26 Aug, 2008 08:49 am
Quote:
A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash
(By AMY HARMON, The New York Times, August 24, 2008)

ORANGE PARK, Fla. " David Campbell switched on the overhead projector and wrote “Evolution” in the rectangle of light on the screen.

He scanned the faces of the sophomores in his Biology I class. Many of them, he knew from years of teaching high school in this Jacksonville suburb, had been raised to take the biblical creation story as fact. His gaze rested for a moment on Bryce Haas, a football player who attended the 6 a.m. prayer meetings of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in the school gymnasium.

“If I do this wrong,” Mr. Campbell remembers thinking on that humid spring morning, “I’ll lose him.”

In February, the Florida Department of Education modified its standards to explicitly require, for the first time, the state’s public schools to teach evolution, calling it “the organizing principle of life science.” Spurred in part by legal rulings against school districts seeking to favor religious versions of natural history, over a dozen other states have also given more emphasis in recent years to what has long been the scientific consensus: that all of the diverse life forms on Earth descended from a common ancestor, through a process of mutation and natural selection, over billions of years.

But in a nation where evangelical Protestantism and other religious traditions stress a literal reading of the biblical description of God’s individually creating each species, students often arrive at school fearing that evolution, and perhaps science itself, is hostile to their faith.

Some come armed with “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution,” a document circulated on the Internet that highlights supposed weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Others scrawl their opposition on homework assignments. Many just tune out.

With a mandate to teach evolution but little guidance as to how, science teachers are contriving their own ways to turn a culture war into a lesson plan. How they fare may bear on whether a new generation of Americans embraces scientific evidence alongside religious belief.

“If you see something you don’t understand, you have to ask ‘why?’ or ‘how?’ ” Mr. Campbell often admonished his students at Ridgeview High School.

Yet their abiding mistrust in evolution, he feared, jeopardized their belief in the basic power of science to explain the natural world " and their ability to make sense of it themselves.

Passionate on the subject, Mr. Campbell had helped to devise the state’s new evolution standards, which will be phased in starting this fall. A former Navy flight instructor not used to pulling his punches, he fought hard for their passage. But with his students this spring, he found himself treading carefully, as he tried to bridge an ideological divide that stretches well beyond his classroom.

On the projector, Mr. Campbell placed slides of the cartoon icon: one at his skinny genesis in 1928; one from his 1940 turn as the impish Sorcerer’s Apprentice; and another of the rounded, ingratiating charmer of Mouse Club fame.

“How,” he asked his students, “has Mickey changed?”

Natives of Disney World’s home state, they waved their hands and called out answers.

“His tail gets shorter,” Bryce volunteered.

“Bigger eyes!” someone else shouted.

“He looks happier,” one girl observed. “And cuter.”

Mr. Campbell smiled. “Mickey evolved,” he said. “And Mickey gets cuter because Walt Disney makes more money that way. That is ‘selection.’ ”

Later, he would get to the touchier part, about how the minute changes in organisms that drive biological change arise spontaneously, without direction. And how a struggle for existence among naturally varying individuals has helped to generate every species, living and extinct, on the planet.

For now, it was enough that they were listening.

He strode back to the projector, past his menagerie of snakes and baby turtles, and pointed to the word he had written in the beginning of class.

“Evolution has been the focus of a lot of debate in our state this year,” he said. “If you read the newspapers, everyone is arguing, ‘is it a theory, is it not a theory?’ The answer is, we can observe it. We can see it happen, just like you can see it in Mickey.”

Some students were nodding. As the bell rang, Mr. Campbell stood by the door, satisfied. But Bryce, heavyset with blond curls, left with a stage whisper as he slung his knapsack over his shoulder.

“I can see something else, too,” he said. “I can see that there’s no way I came from an ape.”

**********************************

The morning after his Mickey Mouse gambit, he bounced a pink rubber Spalding ball on the classroom’s hard linoleum floor.

“Gravity,” he said. “I can do this until the end of the semester, and I can only assume that it will work the same way each time.”

He looked around the room. “Bryce, what is it called when natural laws are suspended " what do you call it when water changes into wine?”

“Miracle?” Bryce supplied.

Mr. Campbell nodded. The ball hit the floor again.

“Science explores nature by testing and gathering data,” he said. “It can’t tell you what’s right and wrong. It doesn’t address ethics. But it is not anti-religion. Science and religion just ask different questions.”

He grabbed the ball and held it still.

“Can anybody think of a question science can’t answer?”

“Is there a God?” shot back a boy near the window.

“Good,” said Mr. Campbell, an Anglican who attends church most Sundays. “Can’t test it. Can’t prove it, can’t disprove it. It’s not a question for science.”

Bryce raised his hand.

“But there is scientific proof that there is a God,” he said. “Over in Turkey there’s a piece of wood from Noah’s ark that came out of a glacier.”

Mr. Campbell chose his words carefully.

“If I could prove, tomorrow, that that chunk of wood is not from the ark, is not even 500 years old and not even from the right kind of tree " would that damage your religious faith at all?”

Bryce thought for a moment.

“No,” he said.

The room was unusually quiet.

“Faith is not based on science,” Mr. Campbell said. “And science is not based on faith. I don’t expect you to ‘believe’ the scientific explanation of evolution that we’re going to talk about over the next few weeks.”

“But I do,” he added, “expect you to understand it.”

Over the next weeks, Mr. Campbell regaled his students with the array of evidence on which evolutionary theory is based. To see how diverse species are related, they studied the embryos of chickens and fish, and the anatomy of horses, cats, seals and bats.

To simulate natural selection, they pretended to be birds picking light-colored moths off tree bark newly darkened by soot.

But the dearth of questions made him uneasy.

“I still don’t have a good feeling on how well any of them are internalizing any of this,” he worried aloud.

When he was 5, Mr. Campbell’s aunt took him on a trip from his home in Connecticut to the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. At the end of the day, she had to pry him away from the Tyrannosaurus rex.

If this didn’t hook them, he thought one Wednesday morning, admiring the cast of a T. rex brain case he set on one of the classroom’s long, black laboratory tables, nothing would. Carefully, he distributed several other fossils, including two he had collected himself.

He placed particular hope in the jaw of a 34-million-year-old horse ancestor. Through chance, selection and extinction, he had told his class, today’s powerfully muscled, shoulder-high horses had evolved from squat dog-sized creatures.

The diminutive jaw, from an early horse that stood about two feet tall, offered proof of how the species had changed over time. And maybe, if they accepted the evolution of Equus caballus, they could begin to contemplate the origin of Homo sapiens.

Mr. Campbell instructed the students to spend three minutes at each station. He watched Bryce and his partner, Allie Farris, look at the illustration of a modern horse jaw he had posted next to the fossil of its Mesohippus ancestor. Hovering, he kicked himself for not acquiring a real one to make the comparison more tangible. But they lingered, well past their time limit. Bryce pointed to the jaw in the picture and held the fossil up to his own mouth.

“It’s maybe the size of a dog’s jaw or a cat’s,” he said, measuring.

He looked at Allie. “That’s pretty cool, don’t you think?”

After class, Mr. Campbell fed the turtles. It was time for a test, he thought.

Bryce came to Ridgeview as a freshman from a Christian private school where he attended junior high.

At 16, Bryce, whose parents had made sure he read the Bible for an hour each Sunday as a child, no longer went to church. But he did make it to the predawn meetings of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, a national Christian sports organization whose mission statement defines the Bible as the “authoritative Word of God.” Life had been dark after his father died a year ago, he told the group, but things had been going better recently, and he attributed that to God’s help.

When the subject of evolution came up at a recent fellowship meeting, several of the students rolled their eyes.

“I think a big reason evolutionists believe what they believe is they don’t want to have to be ruled by God,” said Josh Rou, 17.

“Evolution is telling you that you’re like an animal,” Bryce agreed. “That’s why people stand strong with Christianity, because it teaches people to lead a good life and not do wrong.”

Doug Daugherty, 17, allowed that he liked science.

“I’ll watch the Discovery Channel and say ‘Ooh, that’s interesting,’ ” he said. “But there’s a difference between thinking something is interesting and believing it.”

The last question on the test Mr. Campbell passed out a week later asked students to explain two forms of evidence supporting evolutionary change and natural selection.

“I refuse to answer,” Bryce wrote. “I don’t believe in this.”

Mr. Campbell looked at the calendar. Perhaps this semester, he thought, he would skip over the touchy subject of human origins. The new standards, after all, had not gone into effect. “Maybe I’ll just give them the fetal pig dissection,” he said with a sigh.

It wasn’t just Bryce. Many of the students, Mr. Campbell sensed, were not grasping the basic principles of biological evolution. If he forced them to look at themselves in the evolutionary mirror, he risked alienating them entirely.

The discovery that a copy of “Evolution Exposed,” published by the creationist organization Answers in Genesis, was circulating among the class did not raise his flagging spirits. The book lists each reference to evolution in the biology textbook Mr. Campbell uses and offers an explanation for why it is wrong.

Where the textbook states, for example, that “Homo sapiens appeared in Africa 200,000 years ago based on fossil and DNA evidence,” “Exposed” counters that “The fossil evidence of hominids (alleged human ancestors) is extremely limited.” A pastor at a local church, Mr. Campbell learned, had given a copy of “Exposed” to every graduating senior the previous year.

But the next week, at a meeting in Tallahassee where he sorted the new science standards into course descriptions for other teachers, the words he had helped write reverberated in his head.

“Evolution,” the standards said, “is the fundamental concept underlying all biology.”

When he got home, he dug out his slide illustrating the nearly exact match between human and chimpanzee chromosomes, and prepared for a contentious class.

“True or false?” he barked the following week, wearing a tie emblazoned with the DNA double helix. “Humans evolved from chimpanzees.”

The students stared at him, unsure. “True,” some called out.

“False,” he said, correcting a common misconception. “But we do share a common ancestor.”

More gently now, he started into the story of how, five or six million years ago, a group of primates in Africa split. Some stayed in the forest and evolved into chimps; others " our ancestors " migrated to the grasslands.

On the projector, he placed a picture of the hand of a gibbon, another human cousin. “There’s the opposable thumb,” he said, wiggling his own. “But theirs is a longer hand because they live in trees, and their arms are very long.”

Mr. Campbell bent over, walking on the outer part of his foot. He had intended to mimic how arms became shorter and legs became longer. He planned to tell the class how our upright gait, built on a body plan inherited from tree-dwelling primates, made us prone to lower back pain. And how, over the last two million years, our jaws have grown shorter, which is why wisdom teeth so often need to be removed.

But too many hands had gone up.

He answered as fast as he could, his pulse quickening as it had rarely done since his days on his high school debate team.

“If that really happened,” Allie wanted to know, “wouldn’t you still see things evolving?”

“We do,” he said. “But this is happening over millions of years. With humans, if I’m lucky I might see four generations in my lifetime.”

Caitlin Johnson, 15, was next.

“If we had to have evolved from something,” she wanted to know, “then whatever we evolved from, where did IT evolve from?”

“It came from earlier primates,” Mr. Campbell replied.

“And where did those come from?”

“You can trace mammals back 250 million years,” he said. The first ones, he reminded them, were small, mouselike creatures that lived in the shadow of dinosaurs.

Other students were jumping in.

“Even if we did split off from chimps,” someone asked, “how come they stayed the same but we changed?”

“They didn’t stay the same,” Mr. Campbell answered. “They were smaller, more slender " they’ve changed a lot.”

Bryce had been listening, studying the hand of the monkey on the screen .

“How does our hand go from being that long to just a smaller hand?” he said. “I don’t see how that happens.”

“If a smaller hand is beneficial,” Mr. Campbell said, “individuals with small hands will have more children, while those with bigger hands will disappear.”

“But if we came from them, why are they still around?”

“Just because a new population evolves doesn’t mean the old one dies out,” Mr. Campbell said.

Bryce spoke again. This time it wasn’t a question.

“So it just doesn’t stop,” he said.

“No,” said Mr. Campbell. “If the environment is suitable, a species can go on for a long time.”

“What about us,” Bryce pursued. “Are we going to evolve?”

Mr. Campbell stopped, and took a breath.

“Yes,” he said. “Unless we go extinct.”

When the bell rang, he knew that he had not convinced Bryce, and perhaps many of the others. But that week, he gave the students an opportunity to answer the questions they had missed on the last test. Grading Bryce’s paper later in the quiet of his empty classroom, he saw that this time, the question that asked for evidence of evolutionary change had been answered.
rosborne979
 
  3  
Tue 26 Aug, 2008 09:20 am
@wandeljw,
That guy sounds like a good teacher. Too bad he has to fight so hard to overcome preconceived misunderstandings of evolution and science. The dark ages are still at our doorstep, forever straining to open the door.
wandeljw
 
  2  
Tue 26 Aug, 2008 09:52 am
@rosborne979,
I agree, rosborne. This is the best article I have ever read about how a teacher personally handles teaching a difficult subject.
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 26 Aug, 2008 10:14 am
@wandeljw,
wande quoted-

Quote:
Mr. Campbell smiled. “Mickey evolved,” he said. “And Mickey gets cuter because Walt Disney makes more money that way. That is ‘selection.’ ”


He is in danger there of making the YEC's case. Money is about 6000 years old. And Jesus lost his life for kicking money men and temple harlots. Partly at least.

He enjoins asking "how" and "why" about things we don't understand. How and why did money arise, and how and why did it develop so that Mr Disney makes more of it from shortening Mick's "tail"? And he's got bigger eyes like in the "shocked" emocion and he looks "cuter" the young lady said so wittily.

Isn't money there in the same place as life beginning is in a wider scheme? He has begged a question and a vital one at that.

So why has he done that? If he's been involved in setting state educational standards he must be wise enough to know that he has begged the key question. Not knowing would disqualify him from such a responsible task surely? But knowing also does.

ros thinks he's a good teacher because he's teaching what ros approves of him teaching. Nothing new there. I don't know why ros bothers.

Quote:
Later, he would get to the touchier part, about how the minute changes in organisms that drive biological change arise spontaneously, without direction.


I'll admit that how the minute changes in organisms that drive biological change arise spontaneously, without direction, is the touchier part but I doubt Amy would appreciate touching upon it anymore than just saying it would be touched upon later.

I'd bet that Bryce will be earning at least three times as much as Mr Campbell when he's the same age.

Quote:
Mr. Campbell looked at the calendar. Perhaps this semester, he thought, he would skip over the touchy subject of human origins. The new standards, after all, had not gone into effect. “Maybe I’ll just give them the fetal pig dissection,” he said with a sigh.


That's a white flag. Abject surrender.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 26 Aug, 2008 10:20 am
@rosborne979,
ros wrote-

Quote:
That guy sounds like a good teacher. Too bad he has to fight so hard to overcome preconceived misunderstandings of evolution and science. The dark ages are still at our doorstep, forever straining to open the door.


"Your" doorstep you mean. Not "our's". Let there be light.

Don't go confusing you with us again ros. And Mr Campbell overcame nothing that I could see. He was overcome. Perhaps you didn't read it all in your eagerness to ejaculate your idiotic remarks.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  3  
Tue 26 Aug, 2008 11:24 pm
@wandeljw,
I was not going to read the whole thing, only skim it but in fact I agree. This is the best article I've read about a teacher handling a difficult subject.

Organized Ignorance = Religion
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 05/01/2024 at 05:26:05