Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy

[Da_man]

*In response to first post*

AMAZING! The creationist strategy is EVOLVING!

 

In all seriousness, I think that they should teach evolution, and if they want to learn creationism, they can go to they're church, rather forcing it on atheists.

[Achilles]

AMAZING! The creationist strategy is EVOLVING!

Haha!

 

I was sorely tempted to say something similar in the first post, but I didn't want to distract from the seriousness that I was trying to convey.

[Samuel Dravis]

Truth isn't a democracy, but I think any widely held belief, especially if it is quite likely not true needs to be studied so it can be shown to be false. My 2 cents on that...

I just have a small point here, but Creationism (as it is commonly held) cannot be shown to be false. It can only be shown to have no credible evidential basis. By corollary, it cannot be shown to be true either, since its truth would necessarily not be dependent on evidence. As a result, any classroom discussion of it would not resolve anything.

 

I can't see a benefit in putting it in a science classroom when the time can be better used on other topics. Yes, it could be mentioned in passing, as an example of how not to do things, or if a student brings it up (which they surely will). But those talks should not be a focus of the course. Instead, students should be taught: "Don't call this science, because it isn't." And that, of course, shows what we mean by science. Such teaching would not be the suppression of an idea, but a clarification of ideas. You might say: sheep on the right, goats to the left. And such a judgment would not be unfair, any more than saying that a square is not a circle. And if the class is about circles...

 

I would possibly argue however that if something is a pseudo-science and is masquerading as science, then should it not be confronted in the science classroom?

It should be confronted in the same way as astrology, perhaps: "It isn't science and we won't waste our time on it here." And that's all that needs to be said before moving onto what they're actually supposed to be learning. Students should be allowed to ask questions, yes. But they should not be allowed to equate two radically different categories of thought. As Achilles said, only some questions are relevant to the course. Anything beyond a clarification and subsequent dismissal of, e.g. creationism from discussion, is not only a waste of time-- it cheats the students out of their education.

[Darth InSidious]

Yes, all three of these belief systems include creation myths therefore any strict adherents would be considered creationists.

Christians have regarded the Genesis stories of creation as allegorical since the time of Augustine of Hippo (354-430).

 

In "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way - it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal. Augustine also doesn’t envision original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up.

 

So, actually, "strict" adherents to Christianity do not necessarily believe in creation, and only wishy-washies opt for theistic evolution.

 

I suspect we might find similar things amongst Muslim and Hindu scholars, but I wouldn't like to comment.

[Achilles]

^^^^

 

There are a lot of arguments (some of which sound like your post and some of which that might sound like one of mine) for why christian fundamentalists (i.e. "literalists" which is what I meant by "strict adherents") are wrong with regards to various interpretations of the bible. Yet somehow I suspect that they won't listen to either of us

 

@ topic:

is a video which I think frames the issue perfectly.

[Arcesious]

After a little further study, this is what I came up with, as to reasons why it is not taught:

 

Creation science is not falsifiable : Theism is not falsifiable, since the existence of God is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. If God is a transcendental being, beyond the realm of the observable, no claim about his existence can be supported or undermined by observation. Thus, creationism, the argument from design and other arguments for the existence of God are a priori arguments. (See also the section on falsifiability below.)

Creation science violates the principle of parsimony : Creationism fails to pass Occam's razor. Many explanations offered by creation science are more complex than alternative explanations. Parsimony favours explanations that make the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities.

Creation science is not empirically testable : Creationism posits the supernatural which by definition is beyond empirical natural testing, and thus conflicts with the practical use of methodological naturalism inherent in science.

Creation science is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments : That creationism is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments stems not from the theory itself, but from the phenomena that it tries to explain.

Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive : Creationism professes to adhere to an "absolute Truth", "the word of God", instead of a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data as well as any future data. It is often given as a justification for the naturalistic basis of science. In any practical sense of the concept, creation science is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what went before it and is not consistent with established ancillary theories.

 

----------------------

 

The teaching of creation science in public schools in the United States effectively ended in 1987 when the United States Supreme Court determined the creation science taught in Louisiana public schools was not a legitimate scientific theory, and ruled its teaching unconstitutional in Edwards v. Aguillard because its true purpose was to advance a particular religious belief.

 

-----------------------

 

The court ruled that "creation science" failed to meet these essential characteristics and identified specific reasons. After examining the key concepts from creation science, the court found:

 

Sudden creation "from nothing" calls upon a supernatural intervention, not natural law, and is neither testable nor falsifiable

Objections in creation science that mutation and natural selection are insufficient to explain common origins was an incomplete negative generalization

'Kinds' are not scientific classifications, and creation science's claims of an outer limit to the evolutionary change possible of species are not explained scientifically or by natural law

Separate ancestry of man and apes is an assertion rather than scientific explanation, and did not derive from any scientific fact or theory

Catastrophism, including its identification of the worldwide flood, failed as a science

"Relatively recent inception" was the product of religious readings and had no scientific meaning, and was neither the product of, nor explainable by, natural law; nor is it tentative.

 

Now I know it's a lot to read, and it doesn't mean I'm totally against it, but I think this may provide some interesting debatable insight into this. By quting all of this, I'm trying to help make it understood why the court ruled as it did about creationism in public schools.

[Darth InSidious]

Yet somehow I suspect that they won't listen to either of us

 

Ain't that the truth...

[Achilles]

By quting all of this, I'm trying to help make it understood why the court ruled as it did about creationism in public schools.

Yes and no. The court ruled against creationism in public schools because allowing it violates the Establishment Clause (Edwards v. Aguillard). That's the legal argument. The logical argument is encapsulated by what you quoted above.

[El Sitherino]

I have two words for anyone that thinks Creationism should be taught in school. "Sunday School", it doesn't take an attorney to present this case as the bull**** time-waster that it is.

 

School is for factual based education, everything that is taught is able to be rationalized and based upon some unit of measure. Religion is free of this restriction since it simply requires that you determine all answers ultimately end with God as the source. The problem with this is God cannot be measured nor rationalized.

 

Why don't they just go ahead and start teaching kids Unicorn riding, in case those ever turn out to actually exist and the scientists were wrong about that too.

[Achilles]

Why don't they just go ahead and start teaching kids Unicorn riding, in case those ever turn out to actually exist and the scientists were wrong about that too.

Then all the believers would have to switch to the King James version:

39:9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

39:10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

39:11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?

[Achilles]

I had a chance to listen to a pretty cool interview with Ken Miller today on Science Friday. Despite my...philosophical differences with Ken Miller (I think he's a hypocrite ), I always enjoy listening to what he has to say about science (and biology in particular).

 

Here is a link for anyone that would like to hear the conversation. Here's a brief description of the segment:

God vs. Science: Keeping Creationism out of School

 

Talk of the Nation, June 13, 2008 · This summer, the Texas Board of Education gears up to possibly consider whether biology classes should include the "strengths and weaknesses" evolutionary theory — known as creationism to some. Biology professor and textbook author Kenneth Miller discusses the debate.

[Achilles]

Link to full story

BATON ROUGE -- Gov. Bobby Jindal attracted national attention and strongly worded advice about how he should deal with the Louisiana Science Education Act.

 

Jindal ignored those calling for a veto and this week signed the law that will allow local school boards to approve supplemental materials for public school science classes as they discuss evolution, cloning and global warming.

 

The state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education will have the power to prohibit materials, though the bill does not spell out how state officials should go about policing local instructional practices.

 

A subject of considerable debate, but receiving few "nay" votes, in the legislative session that ended Monday, the bill is lauded by its supporters as a great step forward for academic freedom.

 

Critics call it a back-door attempt to replay old battles about including biblical creationism or intelligent design in science curricula, a point defenders reject based on a clause that the law "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine . . . or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."

 

In signing the bill, Jindal issued a brief statement that read in part: "I will continue to consistently support the ability of school boards and BESE to make the best decisions to ensure a quality education for our children."

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

[mur'phon]

I feel sorry for the kids:(

[True_Avery]

"This bill is not a license to propagandize against something they don't like in science," West said. "Someone who uses materials to inject religion into the classroom is not only violating the Constitution, they are violating the bill."

Couldn't of said it better myself.

[Achilles]

CNN clip on this news story

 

Love that half of the segment is news and that the other half is an attempt to pander to the middle

[Nedak]

There was a Christian kid (who carried a gun in his backpack.. but that's off-topic) in my Biology class who turns to me in the middle of class while we were talking about the evolution of bacteria and goes, "I believe in adaptation, not evolution."

 

HAH

 

Anyways, that is ridiculous. The teachers already have to be careful what they say in the classrooms so they don't get fired.

[Inyri]

Well adaptation and evolution are not the same, but your classmate obviously doesn't know the difference.

[Nedak]

They are pretty similar.

 

Adaptation: any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment.

 

Evolution: change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

 

I guess you could say that Adaptation is the result of Evolution.

[Inyri]

Adaptation doesn't necessarily require any DNA alterations; evolution is a form of adaptation. It's like the old saying: every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square.

[Nedak]

Yes, they are based off the same principles. Which is strange why the kid would agree with one and not the other.

[Inyri]

Not really strange at all, actually.

 

Case 1: Creature A adapts to climate changes by sleeping in a cave. Acceptable.

Case 2: Creature A adapts to climate changes by changing its DNA to grow a third arm to hold an umbrella. Unacceptable.

 

There's a bit of a large difference between case 1 and case 2. One is behavioral and one is physical.

 

I'm sure you'll find plenty of creationists who'll admit creatures can be clever enough to adapt behaviorally to all sorts of things, however they typically won't concede that they can adapt more than behaviorally, from what I've seen.

[Nedak]

Case 1 is not adaptation. Natural Selection drives Adaptation, and Natural Selection is where, "only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated." It is not a behavioral.

 

Also Case 2 is unacceptable because the creature doesn't change it's DNA by wanting to change it or the body telling it to.

 

Lets say that a bunch of White Moths are living in London. However, the Moths have been struggling for generations because London has been getting dirtier, and they can't blend in with the soot to avoid being eaten by birds. One spring a pair of Moths reproduce to have a offspring who is not white but black. Due to this genetic mutation it lives on, undetected by birds. It has offspring and a few of them are black and a few of them are white. Thanks to Natural Selection the white moths die off and the black ones live, passing along their traits until the entire species are black moths.

[Inyri]

Depends on how you define adaptation.

 

Natural Selection drives Adaptation

Natural selection drives evolution. Change drives adaptation.

 

Also Case 2 is unacceptable because the creature doesn't change it's DNA by wanting to change it or the body telling it to.

No creature can change its DNA by willing it so. Biology doesn't work that way.

 

Lets say that a bunch of White Moths are living in London. However, the Moths have been struggling for generations because London has been getting dirtier, and they can't blend in with the soot to avoid being eaten by birds. One spring a pair of Moths reproduce to have a offspring who is not white but black. Due to this genetic mutation it lives on, undetected by birds. It has offspring and a few of them are black and a few of them are white. Thanks to Natural Selection the white moths die off and the black ones live, passing along their traits until the entire species are black moths.

The moths didn't adapt to their environment, the environment simply selected those more suitable to survive. The dark moths already existed in the population, however now instead of being the less suitable type they were more suitable. No physical change happened within the moth population in response to the soot build up; a pair of white moths didn't magically breed black offspring after the industrial revolution began, but rather it was a naturally occurring genetic variation.

[Nedak]

Depends on how you define adaptation.

 

The definition through biology of course.

 

Natural selection drives evolution. Change drives adaptation.

 

It drives both, according to Dictionary.com and my old Biology Teacher.

 

"that results from natural selection."

 

No creature can change its DNA by willing it so. Biology doesn't work that way.

 

Exactly what I just said.

 

The moths didn't adapt to their environment, the environment simply selected those more suitable to survive. The dark moths already existed in the population, however now instead of being the less suitable type they were more suitable. No physical change happened within the moth population in response to the soot build up; a pair of white moths didn't magically breed black offspring after the industrial revolution began, but rather it was a naturally occurring genetic variation.

 

A physical change did happen. There was a genetic mutation which resulted in a mass physical change through the entire population. It didn't happen quickly, but it happened. Yes, it was a naturally occurring genetic variation, but the moths did ultimately adapt to that new environment.

 

Also, your argument could be used for both evolution and adaptation, since both use mutations and natural selection.

[Inyri]

You didn't read what I said. A physically change didn't happen in response to the environmental change. It's not like the moths said "hey look, the trees are covered in soot. Let's make black babies!"

 

The moth issue was pure natural selection with two already existing variations in the population. The moths evolved, but they evolved before the environmental change, not after it. They were simply selected for after it.

 

Your definition makes no distinction between adaptation and evolution. I reject it.