Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
68 online now:
AZPaul3, Tanypteryx (2 members, 66 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,327 Year: 4,439/6,534 Month: 653/900 Week: 177/182 Day: 10/47 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution
David Fitch
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 245 (153272)
10-27-2004 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Lucifer
10-26-2004 11:41 PM


You are right that many creationist ideas are not testable scientific hypotheses. But there are some creation theories that are testable, not because they propose detailed mechanisms for the process of creation, but because they make clear and testable predictions.

Intelligent Design is one of these latter theories. It is almost identical to the kind of creationist theories upheld by Cuvier, Owen, Geoffroy, and other preDarwinian scientists. It makes clear predictions about the kinds of patterns one expects to see with respect to biogeographic distributions of species, the fossil record, classification, embryology, and comparative morphology (even molecular similarity). Darwin used such predictions to demonstrate that creation was inconsistent with the data. This was much more powerful and convincing than merely showing that decent with modification was consistent with the data.

Other evolutionary hypotheses have been falsified by the same approach, even though a mechanistic basis was not specified. Lamarckian transformism had no material mechanism (just some kind of inner drive, a kind of directed mutational force, but with no underlying mechanism specified). Nevertheless, this hypothesis makes very specific, testable predictions about collectable data.

And if you think all the mechanisms underlying evolution are "explained", then please tell me precisely how mutation occurs. How is a "polymerase error" actually effected? And why do biases occur in the frequencies of particular transitions and transversions? Certainly, the greatest new synthesis in evolutionary biology today is about figuring out the "black box" of translating the genotype into the phenotype via development. If someone knows all the mechanisms of this, please tell me so I can retire!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Lucifer, posted 10-26-2004 11:41 PM Lucifer has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-27-2004 3:12 AM David Fitch has replied
 Message 140 by PaulK, posted 10-27-2004 3:29 AM David Fitch has taken no action
 Message 143 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2004 2:11 PM David Fitch has taken no action

  
David Fitch
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 245 (153274)
10-27-2004 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by TruthDetector
01-16-2004 9:14 PM


You are confusing bible stories with the creationist movement in America. The Intelligent Designists propose that their theory is scientifically validated. In fact, they use rhetoric to confuse students into thinking that the data support creation.

My point is that students need to understand what constitutes scientific validation with respect to evolution and creation theories so they can use the scientific method to inquire independently. If we cannot bring alternative hypotheses into the classroom, there is no way to demonstrate how the data are actually inconsistent with Intelligent Design, Lamarckism, or other hypotheses that are the alternatives to evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by TruthDetector, posted 01-16-2004 9:14 PM TruthDetector has taken no action

  
David Fitch
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 245 (153275)
10-27-2004 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Chiroptera
11-08-2003 2:40 PM


Re: yes, teach it
Thanks Chiroptera. Sorry to get back a year later! But yes, you are right, and you have identified the main problem.

Nevertheless, the solution must be better education about how science actually works. I can think of no better way to do this than to teach science by involving students directly in the process of science.

A good teachers' guide could also help.

Hopefully, the good teachers can help proliferate the good science and more good teachers. But we gotta start somewhere.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 11-08-2003 2:40 PM Chiroptera has taken no action

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3879
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 139 of 245 (153287)
10-27-2004 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by David Fitch
10-27-2004 1:50 AM


Need a new ID topic?
quote:
It makes clear predictions about the kinds of patterns one expects to see with respect to biogeographic distributions of species, the fossil record, classification, embryology, and comparative morphology (even molecular similarity).

"It" refers to Intelligent Design.

Being maybe feeble of mind, I'm getting mixed messages on which side of the creationism/evolution debate you are on.

Perhaps you would like to propose a new topic along the lines of "Intelligent Design Predictions", and include and elaborate on the above quoted, in your opening message.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by David Fitch, posted 10-27-2004 1:50 AM David Fitch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by David Fitch, posted 10-27-2004 10:18 AM Minnemooseus has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 140 of 245 (153293)
10-27-2004 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by David Fitch
10-27-2004 1:50 AM


quote:

You are right that many creationist ideas are not testable scientific hypotheses. But there are some creation theories that are testable, not because they propose detailed mechanisms for the process of creation, but because they make clear and testable predictions.

Intelligent Design is one of these latter theories. It is almost identical to the kind of creationist theories upheld by Cuvier, Owen, Geoffroy, and other preDarwinian scientists. It makes clear predictions about the kinds of patterns one expects to see with respect to biogeographic distributions of species, the fossil record, classification, embryology, and comparative morphology (even molecular similarity). Darwin used such predictions to demonstrate that creation was inconsistent with the data. This was much more powerful and convincing than merely showing that decent with modification was consistent with the data.


I'm afraid that this isn't true. Intellegient Design is just a banner grouping together a large range of different views. The only constant is that there should be intelligent intervention somewhere signfiicant in the process of evolution although comments by Dembski in the last few years suggest that even that might be pushed back to teh creation of the universe. While ID used to insist intelligent intervention directly in the process of evolution in recent years even this has softened with Dembski allowing "front-loading" - where the intervention is at some initial step, perhaps even the creation of the universe - as a fallback. ID is too amorphous to produce any clear position on anything and it is part of the ID strategy to avoid discussing the differences within the movement. ID not only cannot produce clear predictions it has a policy that discourages even individual members from championing any view that would do so.

The only sign that ID may be solidifying its posiiton comes from behind the scenes when Steven Jones - a minor figure in the ID movement announced that he had been asked to leave by Philip Johnson over his support for Common Descent. However, this appears to be an issue kept private within the ID movement and is not part of the officially stated position.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by David Fitch, posted 10-27-2004 1:50 AM David Fitch has taken no action

  
Lucifer
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 245 (153324)
10-27-2004 8:06 AM


Logically, I figured out Intelligent Designer couldn't possibly more scientific, since it demands the existence of some sort of Designer, yet, there has been no evidence of this. This is similar to supporting the evidence that a god does exist, but I haven't seen that yet.
I don't know what the scientists say about mutation, but I think it would happen in the similar manner viruses infect organisms.

  
David Fitch
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 245 (153353)
10-27-2004 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Minnemooseus
10-27-2004 3:12 AM


Re: Need a new ID topic?
Has no one in this forum actually read Darwin's "Origin"? I'm surprised that people think ID makes no predictions about patterns of variation. Maybe we do need a new forum on that topic!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-27-2004 3:12 AM Minnemooseus has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Lithodid-Man, posted 11-24-2004 8:40 PM David Fitch has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 706 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 143 of 245 (153405)
10-27-2004 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by David Fitch
10-27-2004 1:50 AM


And if you think all the mechanisms underlying evolution are "explained", then please tell me precisely how mutation occurs.

As DNA polymerase proceeds along the leading strand in the stream direction of the helicase, occasionally it "slips back" and a slippage loop occurs:

The incorrection annealed DNA is repaired by an enzyme (is that AP endonuclease?) which snips the leading strand (not the looped strand created by the polymerase) and "repairs" it, using the expanded loop as the template. The DNA is then ligated back together. That results in the duplication of some number of base sequences.

Other slippage might result in the deletion of base sequences. There's nothing mysterious about how mutation occurs; almost any kind of damage has the potential to hydrolyze the bond between the base and the sugar backbone. That would result in the loss of one base, or possibly a substitution, if the damage is not repaired.

And why do biases occur in the frequencies of particular transitions and transversions?

Because the four different nucleotides have slightly different chemical properties.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by David Fitch, posted 10-27-2004 1:50 AM David Fitch has taken no action

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 144 of 245 (162435)
11-22-2004 8:39 PM


Sadly, but along the lines of the title of this thread, CBS News has a new poll:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

Apparently 37% ( they say only 37%!!!!!!) of the American public thinks that the teaching of evolution should be replaced by creationism in our public schools. 65% think they should be taught together. Since that adds to 102%, I presume there was a third option and one could pick two answers.

What shit! How's housing in Britain? Any jobs for old, outdated chemists?


Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by MangyTiger, posted 11-22-2004 9:47 PM Coragyps has replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 5593 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 145 of 245 (162449)
11-22-2004 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Coragyps
11-22-2004 8:39 PM


How's housing in Britain?

Vastly overpriced and generally nowhere as nice as in Texas (never went to Snyder - actually I don't think I ever even heard of it - but I spent a couple of years in Austin in the early 90s).

Seriously though, I find this kind of thing frightening. The most powerful nation on Earth possibly on the way to becoming a fundamentalist theocracy - just the thought scares me silly...

P.S. I know that theocracy is a big stretch from teaching creationism in school - but I don't think it is by any means impossible.


Confused ? You will be...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Coragyps, posted 11-22-2004 8:39 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Coragyps, posted 11-22-2004 9:49 PM MangyTiger has taken no action
 Message 147 by jar, posted 11-22-2004 10:02 PM MangyTiger has taken no action

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 146 of 245 (162451)
11-22-2004 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by MangyTiger
11-22-2004 9:47 PM


just the thought scares me silly...

And it's really starting to scare me worse than that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by MangyTiger, posted 11-22-2004 9:47 PM MangyTiger has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33909
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 147 of 245 (162455)
11-22-2004 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by MangyTiger
11-22-2004 9:47 PM


P.S. I know that theocracy is a big stretch from teaching creationism in school - but I don't think it is by any means impossible.

Unfortunately I don't think we are all that far from a Fundamentalist Theocracy unless folk step up and speak out immediately. How sad. The Taliban with nukes AND all the means to deliver them anywhere in the world against anyone.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by MangyTiger, posted 11-22-2004 9:47 PM MangyTiger has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by PecosGeorge, posted 11-23-2004 1:09 PM jar has taken no action

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6112 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 148 of 245 (162660)
11-23-2004 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by sidelined
11-08-2003 3:36 PM


you are correct
Christian creation would have to be taught alongside all other creation stories and that is ridiculous.
Creation does NOT belong in the American classroom. What people do in other countries is their affair. Here, we have a separation of church and state, and liberty for all to believe as they wish. No kind of religion is to be fed to children in public schools. If people want religion in a classroom, they should send their children to a religious school, teach their children about God at home, or send them to Sunday school. It is an outrageous misconception that Christ would want himself pushed on anyone.
No creation in public schools, hollow or otherwise
A Christian.


"Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit!"
2 Cor. 7:1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by sidelined, posted 11-08-2003 3:36 PM sidelined has taken no action

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6112 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 149 of 245 (162661)
11-23-2004 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by jar
11-22-2004 10:02 PM


for as long as there are Christians with the ability to think, there will be no religion of any kind taught in public schools. There are many such Christians, you just don't hear from them very often.
The thought of it is abhorrent.

This message has been edited by PecosGeorge, 11-23-2004 01:09 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by jar, posted 11-22-2004 10:02 PM jar has taken no action

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6112 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 150 of 245 (162663)
11-23-2004 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Tamara
02-07-2004 2:48 AM


kids need to be taught science for the sake of science and not as an alternative to religion.
The two are mutually exclusive, have nothing in common, and religion must stay out of the public classroom at all cost.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Tamara, posted 02-07-2004 2:48 AM Tamara has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022