Can somebody help me get my feet wet?

Hi, I'm new to the field and I'm mostly interested in it because I am upset that it seems like the theory of evolution is "fact" in public schools. I have no problem with my teacher teaching me that evolution is a theory that has been presented, but it seems like there is no possibility of there being another way. She tells me that I need to see that there are other beliefs out there; what about those who have no firm stance, or no stance at all? How are they supposed to get a fair shot at believing in creation? Could somebody please recommend a book that a 16 year old would understand that is the case against Darwinism? This may sound extremely biased, but that's all I'm hearing and I would like to see where holes are in the theory.

It's as accepted as the theory of gravity, or the germ theory of disease. Well, there always is, just as there's always the possibility that the Germ theory of disease is wrong and that diseases are caused another way.What is true is that the theory of evolution is the only origins explanation supported by all the evidence. Isn't that what's important? Why should they? Maybe it's better to ask, why should they get a better chance at "believing" that evolution is false than people get at believing that the theory of gravity or the theory of disease is false?Why should anybody have to get a chance to believe in a theory that is wrong? Anyway they still have a chance. They just have to believe like all creationists have to believe - in the face of a significant weight of evidence that they're wrong. Why don't you ask a scientist instead? Surprising as it may be, an honest biologist is more than willing to explain to you exactly where the least-supported areas of the theory of evolution are, because that's where all the exciting research is happening. (What, you thought scientists sat around and proved stuff we already knew about? The problem you're going to have is that a lot of the Creationist literature for people your age is filled with distortions and outright lies. (Actually, that's true of the stuff for adults, too.) Stick with the scientific literature instead.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-27-2004]

Welcome to our little coffee chat place. I have my own biases. My first comment is how dare your teacher suggest that the theory of evolution is only a fact! Tch tch.You don't seem to understand that a theory in science is a much bigger deal than a simple measly fact. You should find some of the threads here about that.You should start by dividing the evidence for the occurance of evolution of life on earth and any explanations for how it happened. That is happened is beyond any reasonable (and even, lol, very unreasonable ) arguement.Given that one has to explain how this could be. That is the current theory of evolution (ToE for short). No one seems to have a better idea than that so it is given as the very best explanation we can come up with. It is so solidly tested and accepted that, to save time, your teacher may give you the impression that there it is simple "true" in some way.Scientific theories, even ones like the ToE (or lesser ones like gravity, and it is lessor by the way), are never "TRUE" in some mystical way. They are simply the best we have and only taken as a good theory when they have withstood a lot of testing and thought.If you think there is any special part that you disagree with start a thread on it and the evidence for it will be presented to you. You might save time by reading over existing threads though.

---

Common sense isn't[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-27-2004]

there's quite a bit of recent information out there that isn't creationist, but it goes against what Darwin says and it shows the (im)probability of a mutation causing an entire new species. These books include Not by Chance: Shattering the modern theory of evolution by lee m. spetner and Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe by Michael Behe. Now I have never read these books, I have just read about them on Amazon user reviews. Don't give me a hard time about that, that's what I'm trying to find out, which of those books present information in a comprehendible manner.

But they're both wrong. It's totally your perogative to seek out Creationist information. I do it too. But that doesn't mean that the information you're going to get isn't wrong. Quite frankly, you look like you're out to find Creationist information for the wrong reason - you think it has merit. I guess I'm just trying to stop you before you make a mistake.For instance there's nothing improbable about evolution giving rise to new species. We observe it all the time. Something that happens all the time can hardly be improbable, right?

Ok, you're starting down the right track. It helps to understand what you've been told.I'm just giving you my thoughts on this, real details and evidence can follow later as needed.The intelligent design guys mostly ( I think) already accept almost all of evolution. Including almost the ToE. Some just think that the origin of life (a separate issue from evolution) was helped along by space aliens or something. Others think that some very specific evolutionary steps were helped along by some intelligence. That isn't very helpful if you disagree with evolution in a broad way.We see new species arising right now. Therefore anyone who suggests they can't is simply wrong. Perhaps more details would be necessary to understand what is being discussed.

---

Common sense isn't

TripleA345If you need to get a real overview of how much support there is for evolution please check out this website. http://www.origins.tv/darwin/eyes.htm When you get to it you will find many controversies as to how mechanisms involved in different aspects of evolution occured and that is the nature of science. That evolution occured is not contested but that how science investigates the clues and makes assesments of the evidence is.Please understand that we can show support though physics chemistry biology geology etc.It is also only fair that you take the questions you have and be thorough in checking them out against the actual work being done in the field by scientists.Take courses to familiarize yourself with the basic arguements and ask people in the different science disciplines to show how they determine how to judge what the evidence means.I do hope you have fun with the process and get a kick out of learning how all these things fit together and more importantly how many new questions each discovery makes.Good luck.

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

I haven't read Spetner's book but I've seen a version of his argument that new species are too improbable. It wasn't even mathematically correct. I couldn't recommend any argument that bad.I've also read most of Behe's _Darwin's Black Box_. It has two main arguments against evolution. The first is limited to what Behe can't find in the scienitifc literature - which by other reports seems to have more to do with Behe's ability to search the literature. The second is "Irreducible Complexity" which relies on Behe's unsupported opinion that the indirect routes are too unlikely to consider. I can't recommend that either.

I'd say two things to you:1. Evolution is a fact.2. If you are serious about learning about problems with evolutionary theory, you first need to learn about evolutionary theory. Yes, I know you've been learning about it in school. Trouble is, the level of evolutionary theory you'll learn in school is way short of what you'll need.By analogy, I imagine sometime around now they're teaching you that electrons orbit the nucleus of atoms, probably shown you some diagrams that look a bit like the solar system? Pack out the shells in a 2, 8, 8 pattern? They don't actually do that. If you go to A-level and they'll tell you a different story, same again at degree level. What you're learning now is an approximation to the theory, a simplified model to give you the basic ideas.So, I suggest you read The Origin of Species. It's kind of out of date, and the nineteenth century language and style can be hard to follow at times. But it is a tour de force, and unlike most modern books doesn't assume you have any idea what evolution is about. I rather like Dawkins; The Selfish Gene and Climbing Mount Improbable are worthy books, aimed at the lay reader. However Dawkins rather rabid atheism might stick in your craw.Others here can probably suggest some other good books on evolution, and probably some more technical references?

This is no black and white discussion, Trip. The origin of all things may be a Created event,while the status of all things very much an evolutionary process. I am personally a believer in God and will admit that His power and methods are often mysterious and Faith based. I respect and admire the scientists and cosmologists who are involved in learning disciplines which are unique and progressive. There is no need to choose between Faith and Science. I think that God likes it that way. Be encouraged!

Hi TripleA, and welcome! So... you’re new to it all -- and so inevitably don’t know much about it -- yet its teaching upsets you? Well that’s fine, you can be upset at whatever you want. But evolution is taught as a fact because it is a fact. Sorry, but shared ancestry of all life on earth, and descent with modification, are facts. They are as much facts as the earth orbiting the sun -- probably better supported, in fact.There is also the theory of evolution. ‘Theory’ has a more specific meaning in science than in common usage. In science, a theory is the whole group of ideas -- ‘hypotheses’. Some hypotheses are very, very well evidenced; some have a mere lot of evidence supporting them; and some are a bit more speculative. Taken all together, these bundled hypotheses constitute a Theory, the point of which is to explain some major feature of the natural world. The Theory of Evolution seeks to explain the fact that all living things are related, and have changed and diversified over heaps of time.This page explains it a bit more fully: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory Good. Apart from the fact that your teacher probably understands more about it than you do, evolution is a theory. Well maybe, if you study a lot, in twenty years’ time you can come up with a replacement. But the matter has already been studied by a lot of people for a long time, and evolution really, honestly, seems to be right. Just suppose for a moment that evolution is correct. Would we not then have a hard job finding another way? One can believe whatever one wants. But in science, you have to be able to back up your claims with evidence. What all these other beliefs lack is supporting evidence -- that’s the very reason why the scientific one is most likely to be (approximately) right, and is so widely accepted. Why should they have a fair shot at believing something that is demonstrably wrong? Should we also teach kids that the sun goes round the earth, that diseases are caused by demons, and that the moon is made of cheese? You can believe such things if you wish, but why should we encourage them in schools?Of course, it depends on what you mean by ‘creation’. Living things popping into existence at the word of some god 6,000 years ago is plain wrong. But why couldn’t evolution be the creator’s chosen mechanism? Most creationist books are fit only for infant school level intellects, so no, not really. The thing is, there is no case against ‘Darwinism’. And the reason is obvious: it has already been tested over and over for a hundred years and more. All the objections have already been answered. That is why the theory is so strong -- why any scientific theory has strength, because, despite our best efforts, it has not been refuted. And something that withstands criticism is most likely right.So while I could point you towards some creationist books, they would be feeding you misinformation and plain lies. You deserve better. Perhaps if you were to read up on evolution first, you might then be better placed to see whether the objections hold any merit. What makes you think there are any? There are many areas where explanations are less than certain... but that’s what keeps biologists employed! If you want, you might look into the origins of sex (might appeal to someone your age ), but be prepared for some pretty complex ideas.Best of luck. And do feel free to ask any questions you want. That’s why most of us are here.Cheers, DT

TripleA345, It IS a fact.http://EvC Forum: Evolution For Whatever, etc... -->EvC Forum: Evolution For Whatever, etc... When "creation" can come up with some amazing corroborative evidence like in the link above then it will get a fair shot, until then it's belief & quite rightly should not be taught alongside science in science classes.Mark

Actually...
This topic reminds me of my beginning days in my first regular biology class. The first thing I teacher ever taught us was about the "Nature of Science".
1. It is guided by Natural Law
2. I has to be explanatory by references to natural law.
3. It is testable against the observational world.
4. Its conclusions are tentative, that is, they are not necessarily the final word.
5. It is falsifiable.So basically, the word theory is thrown around so much by people thinking it means more, or less than what it REALLY means.
It's not a speculation, nor is it a fact, its just an idea that is supported my massive amounts of evidence.So to tie this all back in, your evolutionists that are so ready to jump and call theories "facts", you are wrong. It evolution was a fact, it would be called just that, instead of a THEORY. Since it has not received that title, it shall be just that, a theory, not fact.And to the orignal poster: Just read books from both sides, educate yourself about the overal subject and than draw your own conclusion. Evolution isn't a "belief". Science is not a religion, therefore let's not get these things mixed up.

I find it amusing and a little sad that a student who knows nothing about a topic can hold a view that the conventional science position is false. Do such students learn about, for example, the atomic model, compare it to their biblical readings and reject it if it contradicts their interpretation of some bible verse? Of course such arrogance is the result of their religious beliefs. I wonder why creationist students don't reject mathematics because its value of Pi conflicts with the value derived from the old testament.

Katie, welcome.You are confusing two "evolutions" here.Let's pick something else as an example.Gravity. Gravity is a fact. That is things fall down. There is a force between bodies that is proportational to their mass and inversly proportional to the square of the distance.However, Gravity is also a theory. Actually two theories and we need a third one. Newton's theory of gravity is useful but limited. Einstein's general relativity is the other. However, it too is limited and we need what is called a "quantum theory" of gravity.So gravity is a fact and two or three theories.Evolution has occured. That is a fact. Life has evolved over nearly 4 billion years. That is about as close to a fact as apples falling.However, how has it occured? The answer to that is a theory of evolution. We have one good contender for that right now.

---

Common sense isn't