|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biology teacher resource help | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fishboy Junior Member (Idle past 5893 days) Posts: 12 Joined: |
First of all let me say I am a Christian so you know where I am coming from. I admit my bias. I actually teach Biology at a Christian School. This is not my specialty, so I am in need of help. In case you are wondering my specialty is earth science, and I do not believe in a young earth. I posted here because many of the responses I have read have been logically presented with data to back them up.
I am desperately trying to understand things from an evolutionists point of view. I want to do this scientifically. My problem is that I don't know were to look for good unbiased scientific data. I'd like to compare this with an honest scientific viewpoint presented from the other side. Most creationist sites seem to be unable to do this. There seems to be good data representing the new facts supporting evolution, but I need some basics. Many positions on evolution present the basics as already understood, without data to show the proof. I'm not saying there is no data. I just don't know where to find it. So, please recommend internet sites, books, forums, etc. In addition, has anyone found any creationist arguments that make sense. Know that I am not looking at building a case against evolution. I just want to talk openly and intelligently about science. Of course I would like to find some fallacies in the argument for evolution, but I hope you welcome the challenge. This is good science. I want to be challenged in my opinions as well, so that if I am wrong I will know. I have heard a lot of arguments (by creationists) against evolution. These are presented to christians, who accept them because it makes them feel better about their faith in God. What they don't realize is how unscientific and illogical these arguments are. I refuse to teach such idiotic dogma. I have faith in God, but that faith cannot be divorced from my mind. Any help, encouragement, or advice would be much appreciated. FB Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed topic from "resource help" to "Biology teacher resource help"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Douglas Theobald's 29+ Evidences is good for some good descriptions, but it might be heavy going for some audiences. However: the format is good. It describes what evolution predicts and what is actually found in nature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hi, fishboy.
Sorry, my specialty isn't the earth sciences. But I do have a question: have you looked at the standard text books for secondary school earth science classes (or for whatever grade level you are teaching)? I would expect that (1) they would have a lot of the information that you would need, and (2) they would provided references for additional resources. Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter; His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows And a parade of the gray suited grafters: A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fishboy Junior Member (Idle past 5893 days) Posts: 12 Joined: |
No, my question isn't about the age of the earth. And the textbook info only tells so much. I guess a better way to have stated my question would have been, If you had to convince someone, given that that person was somewhat intelligent, unbiased, and had a basic understanding of biology, that evolution was sound theory, where would you start?. I promise this question isn't meant to antagonize, you won't get any smart@$$ replies, if you respond.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: How about a decent freshman-level college Biology text?
quote: Sadly, no. They either cherry-pick supportive evidence and ignore any evidence that is inconvenient, or they simply present false information. Remember, Creationists are not interested in doing science. They are not interested in testing their own hypothese or trying to learn anything. What they are interested in is preserving their creation beliefs, and any sort of real scientific inquiry is anathema to that if their beliefs contradict the reality of nature. I wish you luck. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2642 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
My problem is that I don't know were to look for good unbiased scientific data. Are you willing to accept data that is published in the scientific literature? If so, the fruit is there for the picking: Google Scholar PubMed Try a site:.edu search on scholar.google. That will bring up college level course notes on evolution. Or you might try a http://www.books.google.com search for evolution. There are literally 1000s of books available. Or you might try http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm. MIT has posted videos of all its undergraduate level courses. That's a goldmine!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
If you had to convince someone, given that that person was somewhat intelligent, unbiased, and had a basic understanding of biology, that evolution was sound theory, where would you start? I would start with Douglas Theobald's essay to which Modulous linked above. I gives a sort of broad over-view of the evidence in favor of evolution, and presents in it prediction-confirmation style -- you can also use this to discuss what science is in general and how it operates. The problem with most creationists' perceptions of the theory of evolution is that they usually don't understand how science operates, and they don't understand how the theory of evolution fits into this general operation. If you want more specific examples of particular observations and experiments within the the general areas that Dr. Theobald describes, then molbiogirl's post will help you find more detailed information. Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter; His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows And a parade of the gray suited grafters: A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fishboy Junior Member (Idle past 5893 days) Posts: 12 Joined: |
It's funny you mention the MIT site Molbiogirl. Just found it a week ago. I've been watching Walter Lewins physics lectures ever since. I watched one of the bio lectures, just what i'm looking for. To be honest one of the main reasons I have asked this question, is that I have a parent complaining that i'm teaching evolution. i really don't want to push either issue. what i do want, is to teach kids how to think. i believe that teaching them how to recognize false conclusions from either side is of utmost importance. this parent wants to throw ken hovind in my face. i just want to slap people like that.
oh well, what do you do. i'm fortunate though. it is only one parent out of the whole school. at least my admin sees that the argument against evolution is weak. i just can't, in good conscience, teach anything that hovind guy says. thanks for the help guys. keep the suggestions coming.fb
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
You asked for arguments that make sense from a creationist (ID?) perspective. Here are some arguments.
Natural selection works against macroevolution. The idea that things can evolve is not sufficient to assume universal common descent and moreover, to assume that by Darwinian or NeoDarwinian methods. This is something, imo, that is glossed over (for all the evos here...I think he knows you disagree so no need to rant). Darwinian processes of what creationists call microevolution have to be shown to be sufficient to and be shown to actually create macroevolution. Best way I know to explain and illustrate this is with dog breeding. All canines (all canine species) can actually successfully interbreed, and you can take a group of canines or dogs and create specific forms. Pure-bred dogs are a good example of that. But what happens when you do that? The genetic range within the breed is diminished. That's one reason so many pure-bred dogs have so many problems. A mutt is generally a healthier and smarter dog. This decreasing of genetic diversity is evolution in the wrong direction for macroevolution to be true. It's a dead-end, and so when evos insist natural selection, etc,...created living and extinct biota, they are actually using evidence against their theory when you think about it. There are many more such arguments.....you can find some of them here. One involves the lack of transitionals in fossils and living biota. If species and subspecies gradually morphed into new species and so forth, this should be amply evident in the fossil record but it is not. At best, evos present a paltry few "intermediates" but they show no gradual morphing beyond evolution within a specific range. The evo argument is that the fossil record is incomplete, though you will hear them paradoxically also state it is "very complete." However, there really are not comprehensive studies to qualify their claims of fossil rarity. Fossils may be rare for individual living things, but are they rare for many species within theoritical evolutionary lines? Are they rare at the genus and family level, etc,...? I used to believe in Darwinism as well, and I was challenged by someone to look at all the data and arguments I was taught concerning evolution and see if they were true. Are they rooted in actual facts, for example? Are the things stated as facts genuinely facts or something else such as hoaxes, overstatements, assumptions, etc,...I suggest you do the same with an open mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
What do you think Darwinian evolution teaches about genes and genetic evolution?
I think that most people get the idea that less complex, maybe not the best way to say it, but organisms that, for example, don't have a complex nerve system, etc,....would evolve via random mutation and natural selection (a little overly simplistic for sake of brevity). So genetic complexity would evolve as a genetic mutation occurs that confers a selective advantage in a specific trait for the individual and this mutation is spread gradually within a group or subgroup of organisms, a species or subspecies or isolated group, and that through this gradual process, genetic complexity would increase over time from the simpler, earlier evolved organisms to later organisms. Genes and genetic complexity would build up in this manner over time more or less matching new traits emerging. Is that your impression of evolutionary theory? Well, what could demonstrate that may not be correct. What if, for example, we found genes and genetic sequences for complex human nerve functions in a species without a complex nerve function indicating that genetic complexity in this area predated by, say, millions of years assuming evo dating, human beings or complex vertebrates? Would that suggest to you that perhaps the story of Darwinian evolution is incorrect?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fishboy Junior Member (Idle past 5893 days) Posts: 12 Joined: |
Yes this is the type of info I want. I just read "what is an articulate informed creationist", to be honest, yes, I'm a little intimidated. So before I jump into this discussion, which i want to do, give me some background, so I can intelligently talk about this. I've specifically been interested in what genetics has to say about evolution. I get the feeling, others can elaborate on this issue as well.
Re. the thread "what is an articulate ...." some of you were saying that you needed more creationist, and that maybe you could help them improve their way of thinking. Well here I am. Willing to learn, just realize that it is necessary to debate. If you are willing to teach, then you must also be willing to listen. That way any wrong thinking can be weeded out and dealt with. I think the problem is that too many have had the unpleasant experience of arguing with someone who refuses to admit that they are wrong. fb
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fishboy Junior Member (Idle past 5893 days) Posts: 12 Joined: |
Just looked up the 29+ evidences. This should do nicely. Thanks modulous.
fb Edited by fishboy, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I think you should be warned that Randman is using this thread to plug his own opinions. You're not getting the serious, well-informed arguments that you really want.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fishboy Junior Member (Idle past 5893 days) Posts: 12 Joined: |
I picked up on that. Thanks. However, it did give me a place to start. I've been hearing these types for years. Not that I don't value randman's opinion. Remember, I'm looking for a good place to start. I feel like I've already accepted the old earth way of thinking, so no need to go there, but anything else is welcome.
fb fb Edited by fishboy, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024