Teaching creationism in schools

[ThisIsTheYear 241]

 

Observer A: I theorize that species that are the fittest or best equipped to survive will survive.

 

Observer B: How can we test that theory?

 

Observer A: By observing species and their extinction rates as well as their ecological competitors

 

Observer B: How do we know the "fittest" survived?

 

A: Because they survived while their competitors died.

 

B: Why did they survive?

 

A: Because they were the fittest.

 

B: How do we know they were the fittest?

 

A: Because they survived.

 

It more or less follows this structure up until the bolded section, but I couldn't tell if you were being intentionally vague or not.

 

Contrary to a surprisingly popular belief, "survival of the fittest" is an approach that is often maligned by geneticists and anthropologists alike, partly because it bears only minor application to evolutionary approach. It's more synonymous with Social Darwinism than anything else. The word "fittest" is particularly problematic because it entails a subjective connotation to it, when really, evolution draws on purely observable phenomena.

 

Evolution is, at it's center, a change in the frequency of alleles. There are several cases that demonstrate these processes. One of the more widely-known is the case of the peppered moths from England. You may very well know about this, but for those who don't, allow me to elaborate; The moths are typically light-skinned to match or blend into the color of the trees. The ability to camouflage against the trees allows them to avoid predation, and consequently, the ratio of light-skinned moths to dark-skinned moths went overwhelmingly in favor of the light-skinned moth, to my recollection, something along the lines of 98/2 in terms of percentage. The Industrial Revolution in England blackened the country side, including the trees, causing them to be covered in black soot. Light-skinned peppered moths began dying out rapidly as a result of increased predation, given that their light skin could easily been seen on a black surface. The black moths, on the other hand, flourished. During this period, light-colored moths died off while black-colored moths persisted at larger quantities. The moth's genotype directly influenced the frequency of the black phenotypic qualities. This shift from black as a recessive (scarce) allele to a dominant allele demonstrates first-hand, natural selection from an objective perspective.

 

 

Again, this is just one tenet of Darwin's overarching Theory. His other being that we all evolved from the same species or that we all have a common ancestor. This is untestable because we cannot reproduce it in a scientific study nor do we have enough empirical data to back up the claim. The fossil record is woefully limited.

 

You'd be surprised. There's been a more than extensive supply of research conducted on the delineation of human history. There have been several recorded fossils dating to a variety of species with wildly different phenotypes, but their chronology demonstrates that they shift towards more and more human features with passing time. The anthropological record can be cryptic at times, given that there are gaps between some eras, but it certainly cannot be dismissed as "woefully limited", either.

 

 

What we do have empirical evidence of are species who retain beneficial traits throughout generations. Evolution in the sense that useless traits or traits contrary to survival are bred out over generations. Such as birds who have longer beaks will survive because they are able to reach seeds deep within trees, etc. This does not give us evidence of one species evolving into another, separate one.

 

You don't evolve into a separate one. Evolution is a change in allele frequency. It's a gradual (to put it softly) process where most qualities, genotypic & phenotypic are still retained. I imagine you're talking about the Galapagos finches?

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

One of the big misconceptions about evolutionary theory is the belief that it requires, for instance, a dog to one day give birth a cat, or a chimp to one day give birth to a human. But it doesn't mean that at all.

 

Speciation merely means that if two different groups of the same species are put into different environments and are then isolated from other groups of that species, each group will, over many generations, undergo microevolution: the process by which favorable traits are passed down from one generation to the next through selective breeding. TITY's example of the colors of moths is a good one, so lets stay with that.

 

Lets assume that two sets of those initial groups of moths existed and became environmentally isolated, with one having their trees covered in black soot, and the other having no such problem.

 

Evolution states that as these two isolated groups of moths will continue to pass on traits that best encourage survival in their respective environments and that, after both groups have seen hundreds, if not thousands, of generations of micro and macroevolutions in their respective, isolated environments, eventually speciation will occur, and the two groups of moths will no longer be capable of producing fertile offspring if interbred.

 

Species that are still, genetically, very closely related can often produce offspring: they just produce offspring that is sterile.

[Osprey 199]

The fossil record is woefully inadequate when discussing things like the Cambrian Explosion.

 

My point was that as a Scientific Theory, Darwin's Theory of Evolution doesn't pass the requirements. It's not testable, its non-disprovable, and it isn't backed up by current empirical data. Arguing that a species changes over time is not Darwin's Theory.

 

If you want to argue that "evolution = change over time" then you'll have to find someone else to argue with because I agree with that. But if you're trying to tell me that we all developed from a common ancestor I'd just like to see the experiment or empirical evidence to back it up.

 

Darwin's Theory insinuates that there should be a plethora of transitional fossils, due to random mutation and natural selection. If this is the case then there should be billions of fossils of failed mutations or evidence of non-beneficial mutations.

 

If we accept Darwin's Theory as pure scientific theory worthy to teach to schoolchildren then we need to show the evidence supporting ALL facets of his theory. We need to prove that species came to be through mutation and natural selection as backed up by fossil record. We need to prove that there is a common ancestor. We need to prove that fittest survive as opposed to retroactively crowning them the "fittest".

 

Many of Darwin's Theory supporters turn to stories that even the most religious nuts would decry as fairy tales. Like how a whale came to be after bears fell in the water and mutated fins to survive. That's just a bad example.

 

You don't evolve into a separate one. Evolution is a change in allele frequency. It's a gradual (to put it softly) process where most qualities, genotypic & phenotypic are still retained. I imagine you're talking about the Galapagos finches?

 

Yes, and I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing the random mutation/natural selection = new species and the circular "survival of the fittest argument". I believe that a species can change over time, I also do not believe that we all have a common ancestor.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

The fossil record is woefully inadequate when discussing things like the Cambrian Explosion.

 

My point was that as a Scientific Theory, Darwin's Theory of Evolution doesn't pass the requirements. It's not testable, its non-disprovable, and it isn't backed up by current empirical data. Arguing that a species changes over time is not Darwin's Theory.

 

If you want to argue that "evolution = change over time" then you'll have to find someone else to argue with because I agree with that. But if you're trying to tell me that we all developed from a common ancestor I'd just like to see the experiment or empirical evidence to back it up.

 

Darwin's Theory insinuates that there should be a plethora of transitional fossils, due to random mutation and natural selection. If this is the case then there should be billions of fossils of failed mutations or evidence of non-beneficial mutations.

 

If we accept Darwin's Theory as pure scientific theory worthy to teach to schoolchildren then we need to show the evidence supporting ALL facets of his theory. We need to prove that species came to be through mutation and natural selection as backed up by fossil record. We need to prove that there is a common ancestor. We need to prove that fittest survive as opposed to retroactively crowning them the "fittest".

 

Many of Darwin's Theory supporters turn to stories that even the most religious nuts would decry as fairy tales. Like how a whale came to be after bears fell in the water and mutated fins to survive. That's just a bad example.

 

 

 

Yes, and I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing the random mutation/natural selection = new species and the circular "survival of the fittest argument". I believe that a species can change over time, I also do not believe that we all have a common ancestor.

 

I think Darwin is taught because it is the gap between what the common belief was and what the belief is today. Darwin was important in bridging the gap. We generally teach philosophy and psychology in school that is out dated (like Freud) not as an end game to the subject, but as a way to examine the steps between establishing human thought.

 

A lot of Darwin's theory still holds up as a theory which is why its still considered a theory after removing the ideas that don't hold up in the scientific community.

[GhostAnime 50]

Ospey, you sound like one of those people people believe in micro but not macro; or rather, you only believe a part of Evolution.

 

but the thing is, they all need to work together in order to work. If you believe they change over time, why wouldn't they also have a common ancestor? That's exactly the evidence that would LEAD to us all having a common ancestor. How else do you notice the changes and explain similarities, leftover vestigial organs, etc. There is plenty of evidence for a common ancestor. In fact, that's the one thing Evolution states with 100% confidence.

 

And yes, we have found plenty of transitional fossils; not just transitional fossils, but transitional 'signs' such as amphibians.

[Optimist Prime 197]

I think Darwin is taught because it is the gap between what the common belief was and what the belief is today. Darwin was important in bridging the gap. We generally teach philosophy and psychology in school that is out dated (like Freud) not as an end game to the subject, but as a way to examine the steps between establishing human thought.

 

A lot of Darwin's theory still holds up as a theory which is why its still considered a theory after removing the ideas that don't hold up in the scientific community.

 

Ah, the "Darwin of the Gaps" hypothesis.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

Ah, the "Darwin of the Gaps" hypothesis.

 

dont patronize me

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Darwin is the grandfather of evolutionary theory in the same sense that Aristotle was the grandfather of science.

 

Both had ideas that were revolutionary for their time.

 

Both also had ideas we now recognize as wildly incorrect. That doesn't mean we should dismiss every contribution they made, simply because some of them are ones we now understand were inaccurate. Correcting previously held incorrect beliefs is part of what makes science a useful tool: it's self-correcting.

[Blu 1]

Throwing out the religious connotations of creationism would be impossible, since it's around the belief in a supernatural creator that the entire theory is hinged.

Creationism is associated with the story told in the Bible. A story which cant really be tested, proven, or disproven. Intelligent Design is different. Although it is associated with a supreme being, it doesn't characterize the being nor give any specific story. It just implys that there may be a complex mind behind the complex design & intertwining of all nature and life. Kind of like Big Bang except the being is random as opposed to merely a random black hole suddenly expanding by itself

 

 

Hammurabi's code could be considered a bridge between early human anarchy and modern democracy. But only a lunatic would consider it an example of democracy, in and of itself.

Not familiar w/ him.

 

 

The current, most common theory of intelligent design is no more a scientific theory than that letter the guy from the church of the flying spaghetti monster is a scientific theory. The "science" behind Intelligent Design Theory is based on a series of "well it just feels right" subjective nonsense and a whole heck of a lot of presenting odd correlations as scientifically calculated causations, the likes of which would have caused my high school science teacher to hang herself if I'd presented them in class.

First of all, I dont subscribe to any one theory. I haven't seen enough evidence to make me support or dismiss any specific theory as 100% false, or as having no merit. The truth likely lies w/in a combination of several theory imo. That's why I say they just need to put it all on the table and explain it all, and then let a student form an independent opinion with it. What seperates a Big Bang Theory as any more accurate than a Design Theory, and who said they had to be mutually exclusive? I couldn't answer that..

 

 

So would you say that if I chose to believe that you were, scientifically, the antichrist and that for the good of man kind, you MUST be shot dead immediately, that we should teach that in a science class?

Sure, as long as you taught all other theory on me as well I wouldn't tell you not to teach that. If at the end of the day,that theory is the one that made the most sense to the students, then fair enough. And you can't manipulate, you would have to put all the info on the table, then sure.

 

 

 

Because the modern Evolutionary theory, which is based on but not the same as the initial theories put forth by Darwin, are the most commonly accepted theories regarding how life spread and diversified on Earth. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is widely seen in the scientific community as proof that people are using their religion as a means by which they can maintain willful ignorance and retain their sense of moral superiority at the same time.

 

 

There is no proof that all animals evolved from one ancestor, yes, but there is enormous proof of speciation, which is what modern evolutionary theory is based on. There is, however, no scientific proof at all that the laws of science had an external creator to which those laws don't apply.

 

Who put forth the idea that Intelligent Design Theory and Evolutionary Theory had to be mutually exclusive? You can subscribe to Intelligent Design and Speciation. All i'm saying is if Darwinism can be in a sciencebook, why not Intelligent Design?

 

How would teaching something as science which the scientific community largely finds to be absurd non-science be considered putting the facts on the table? You're welcome to educate your children however you wish, but you're children aren't being cheated because your children aren't being taught faith-based pseudoscience in biology class.

 

 

 

It's not a question of fact or non-fact. It's a question of which belief is held by the scientific community, and which is not. "We don't know yet" is a perfectly exceptable scientific response to a question that the scientific community doesn't have an answer to. "God did it." is most certainly not.

 

 

Maybe I shouldn't have said facts, I should have said info. Put all the info on the table. The idea that a science teacher can't mention Intelligent design or creation theory if he wanted, because the scientific community doesn't deem it part of the subject matter, that's sounds dumb to me. If a teacher wan'ts to expose his kids to all different theorem in a science class, that is fine w/ me. As long they aren't manipulating opinions, im fine with them teaching that. Sorry if i dont really care for all the pseudo-science mumbo-job, if it is related to the subject i dont care if they mention it. Same with Darwinism, creationism, etc.

 

While we're on the subject, what exactly would a science class lesson on Creationism entail?

 

Teacher: "There is also the theory of intelligent design, which states that things are really complicated, and that there had to be a creator because of how complicated things are. Supporters of this theory are usually not scientists, are on the payroll of Southern Baptist "think tanks", or are graduates of non-accredited Christian colleges, and they usually present evidence so patently ludicrous, you wonder how they can actually put on clothes in the morning. Exhibit A: Kirk Cameron went on national television to claim that evolution couldn't possibly exist because there is no such thing as a croco-duck."

 

And before anyone thinks I have anything against Christians for the Christian college crack, replace "non-accredited Christian college" with "non-accredited Muslim college", and see if you still feel the same about it.

Sure, but stating who the supporters are is borderline where the manipulation comes in. Instead of just critiquing the theory, we want to attack those who support the theory. That is the problem with the system. Just put it on the table and leave it. Do it with all the theory, psuedo or not i personally dont care lol.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Creationism is associated with the story told in the Bible. A story which cant really be tested, proven, or disproven. Intelligent Design is different. Although it is associated with a supreme being, it doesn't characterize the being nor give any specific story. It just implys that there may be a complex mind behind the complex design & intertwining of all nature and life.

 

 

 

Not familiar w/ him.

 

 

 

First of all, I dont subscribe to any one theory. I haven't seen enough evidence to make me support or dismiss any specific theory as 100% false, or as having no merit. The truth likely lies w/in a combination of several theory imo. That's why I say they just need to put it all on the table and explain it all, and then let a student form an independent opinion with it. What seperates a Big Bang Theory as any more accurate than a Design Theory, and who said they had to be mutually exclusive? I couldn't answer that..

 

 

 

Sure, as long as you taught all other theory on me as well I wouldn't tell you not to teach that. If at the end of the day,that theory is the one that made the most sense to the students, then fair enough. And you can't manipulate, you would have to put all the info on the table, then sure.

 

 

 

 

 

Who put forth the idea that Intelligent Design Theory and Evolutionary Theory had to be mutually exclusive? You can subscribe to Intelligent Design and Speciation. All i'm saying is if Darwinism can be in a sciencebook, why not Intelligent Design?

 

 

 

 

Maybe I shouldn't have said facts, I should have said info. Put all the info on the table. The idea that a science teacher can't mention Intelligent design or creation theory if he wanted, because the scientific community doesn't deem it part of the subject matter, that's sounds dumb to me. If a teacher wan'ts to expose his kids to all different theorem in a science class, that is fine w/ me. As long they aren't manipulating opinions, im fine with them teaching that. Sorry if i dont really care for all the pseudo-science mumbo-job, if it is related to the subject i dont care if they mention it. Same with Darwinism, creationism, etc.

 

 

Sure, but stating who the supporters are is borderline where the manipulation comes in. Instead of just critiquing the theory, we want to attack those who support the theory. That is the problem with the system. Just put it on the table and leave it. Do it with all the theory, psuedo or not i personally dont care lol.

 

You've yet to make a single coherent point as to what makes intelligent design theory "science".

 

As for why a biology teacher shouldn't be allowed to teach faith based pseudo-science in a science class, the answer is that doing so is exactly the kind of manipulation that you're accusing them of having for not teaching it.

 

Put simply: Teaching a non-science in a science gives credence to the argument that the non-science is scientifically based. If every school in America taught in history classes that, from a historical perspective, I was a direct reincarnation of Joseph Stalin, I'd be pretty goddamn angry about that. For one, that argument is ridiculous. For two, teaching that in history class lends a really silly notion credibility that it has done nothing to warrant.

 

I will repeat what I wrote in my first post:

 

Science is the study of natural laws and phenomena that govern the universe. There is no room in a study of natural laws for a supernatural being. PERIOD. Doing so is no less ridiculous than claiming it's a good idea to study the future as depicted in the first half of Back to the Future 2 and various science fiction novels in a history class, because it's going to be history in the future.

 

If you want kids being taught intelligent design, they should be taking a class on World Religions which, as I stated already, I would fully support.

 

Also: stop ending your posts with "lol". It just makes you sound ignorant.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Sure, but stating who the supporters are is borderline where the manipulation comes in. Instead of just critiquing the theory, we want to attack those who support the theory. That is the problem with the system. Just put it on the table and leave it. Do it with all the theory, psuedo or not i personally dont care lol.

 

Sorry, but this is ludicrous, and warranted a separate response.

 

Stating who the supporters are is how we establish scientific validity. When deciding whose theory about plant life is more likely to be accurate between a weatherman and a botanist, I'm going to choose the botanist.

 

A Baptist preacher will most likely no less about evolutionary theory than a biologist. This is common sense. To lend each of their theories equal credibility as scientific theories is both insultingly stupid and breathtakingly ridiculous. One's theory is science. The other's theory is religion. Teaching both as science is a lie, and is ultimately destructive to both.

 

But I'm happy to compromise. We'll agree to teach intelligent design as theory in science classes, if we're also allowed, nay REQUIRED, to teach every other theory or variation of a theory that anyone, regardless of credibility, knowledge or rationale, can present.

 

I guarantee I can come up with 20 different theories over a weekend, and all of them will have equal scientific validity to Intelligent Design Theory(which is to say, none whatsoever. But I will make multiple graphs depicting information in a way that implies a causation where none exists).

 

Or I'd just link to this: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/ which already made this point for me 5 years ago, probably more succinctly than I could have.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Well this went about how I expected. A couple of observations:

 

- I like the idea that creationism becomes science simply by removing the specific identity of the supposed creator. I admire it for its complete disregard for any kind of scientific thinking while trying to legitimize itself within science.

 

- I also like the notion that a scientific principle is unsound unless it has been 100% proven with absolutely no room for any further developments. Setting aside the fact that this can never be achieved for anything, this fascinates me because of which scientific principles it gets applied to and which it does not. You never hear people having heated discussions about how we don't fully understand gravity and that any gravitational theory is only a theory until we know more, and probably shouldn't be taught in schools unless other theories of gravity are taught along with it. That never happens. Only those principles which violate religious beliefs are held up to this kind of scrutiny.