Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Key points of Evolution
Phalanx
Member (Idle past 5712 days)
Posts: 31
From: Old Bridge, NJ, US
Joined: 10-12-2006


Message 61 of 356 (464737)
04-28-2008 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Wumpini
04-28-2008 8:59 PM


Re: Are evolutionary observations sufficient?
Wumpini writes:
It should not be taught in such a way that students would get the impression that it is a scientific fact.
A fair point, if it weren't a scientific fact. What you seem to forget is that the scientific community already accepts this as a scientific fact. The fact that you do not, does not make any difference.
Wumpini writes:
It could also be taught that others promote the view that the diversity we see in life is due to supernatural causes that are no longer taking place on the earth today.
To be perfectly honest, that idea is absolutely ludicrous. Science class does not ever have anything to do with the supernatural. The mention of the supernatural does not belong in science class. If you want to open the door to teaching non-science in a science classroom, we may as well begin courses is palmistry, ufo's, and mind control.
The science classroom teaches scientific theories. The scientific theory of evolution has not ever been disproven. Therefore, it is taught in science classrooms along with the theories of gravity and general relativity. A theory based on the supernatural is anithetical to everything that science is founded upon.
The scientific community accepts the theory of evolution as the only valid theory that explains the diversity of life that we see. The fact that you cannot accept the evidence that countless other people do, is simply a personal issue.
If you want children to seek out the truth, then science is the best avenue that they have to finding truth. Feeding them a line about the supernatural cuts science at the knees. As such, I find the idea utterly unacceptable.

And the Ignorant shall fall to the Squirrels - Chip 2:54

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Wumpini, posted 04-28-2008 8:59 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Wumpini, posted 04-28-2008 11:07 PM Phalanx has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 62 of 356 (464739)
04-28-2008 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Wumpini
04-28-2008 8:59 PM


Re: Are evolutionary observations sufficient?
That is quite a leap (you might even say a leap of faith). How can we say that observing small changes in the hereditary traits of populations is sufficient to explain the diversity of life we know on earth.
It's not a leap of faith -- because it is testable and falsifiable, and because it is presented as a theory, it is tentative. This is the essence of scientific theories, that they can be tested and they can be falsified, and until they are falsified, they can tentatively be regarded as valid to see what further conclusions can be drawn.
We should teach that hereditary change occurs in population over time. That is a fact.
Good.
We should teach that it is a theory that these changes may result in the population changing to the extent that a parent population can give rise to two separate populations that are considered different species. They no longer have the ability to interact in such a way to produce offspring. This is a theory, and should be taught as such.
Speciation is an observed fact as well. As one example that shows how little change is necessary for this division of a parent population into two non-breeding daughter populations we can discuss the ring species, the Asian Greenish Warbler: here separated in space instead of time is a chain of varieties of warbler all descended from the same parent species, and all interfertile, all interbreeding until the ring is closed and two varieties overlap that do not interbreed. The coloration is different, the song is different, and neither recognizes the other as mate material. Break the chain at any point and you have two species.
There appear to be way too many unknowns to promote this as an acceptable theory.
I don't understand this objection: no theory explains everything. The better a theory is the better it is at explaining the evidence. What makes it a theory is that you can test it against the evidence.
I really have a problem with the word sufficient.
However, to make the statement that these hereditary changes are sufficient to explain all of the diversity in life on the earth today does not even appear to be close to a supportable theory.
Should the theory of evolution be taught in such a way that it is understood to be sufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth today?
Please notice that you have used sufficient three different ways. This is called equivocation. This is also just your opinion, you have provided no reason, no evidence, no substantiation for your opinion, and unfortunately for you nature is rather unimpressed with opinions.
This should not be taught as a theory that is supportable by the evidence.
Yet it is supported by the evidence. Both the genetic evidence and the fossil evidence show the relationships of species to one another via common ancestors. Both also show an accumulation of differences over time.
If you have a real objection to this being a theory then you should have some evidence where this cannot happen.
It could be taught that some scientists promote the idea that these changes that we see in organisms could explain the diversity in life that we see on this planet.
That is what being a theory means -- it is a tentative explanation based on evidence and logic that is testable: we can test this by seeing if we in fact can explain the diversity of life with speciation and accumulated changes within species.
It could also be taught that others promote the view that the diversity we see in life is due to supernatural causes that are no longer taking place on the earth today.
But we could not say that was science, as it is not testable, nor is there much to teach once you've said it (unless you want to list each and every single variation of the god-did-it we know of) because there is no evidence to support such an assertion.
We could also say that lightening used to be caused by gods but isn't any more. We could also teach that some people believe the world is flat.
The problem is that what we are teaching in science class is how to test ideas for validity, not just a bunch of opinions.
How can we teach that our observations are sufficient to support this theory of evolution.
Because so far all our observations support the theory. Observations of the natural world, observations of the fossil record, observations of genetic relationships. What we see is that all life is related.
Scientifically, we do not even have a solid theory for the origin of life.
There are several theories. These theories are being tested, however this issue has no effect on the fact that evolution occurs today, and would still occur whether the first life was created or formed naturally.
The issue of origins is really irrelevant to evolution.
Would it not be more reasonable to teach the facts as we know them.
Fact: evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - occurs.
Fact: speciation - the division of a parent species into two or more non-interbreeding daughter populations - occurs.
Fact: evolution and speciation result in different (ie diverse) species related by common ancestors.
Fact: this kind of relationship can be found in the fossil record.
Fact: this kind of relationship can be found in the genetic record.
Fact: the genetic relationships match the fossil record relationships.
However, this theory is not sufficient at the present time to explain many of the changes that would have needed to take place for the diversity and complexity of life that we see today.
Care to substantiate that assertion? Please go to the "Dogs will be Dogs wil be ???" thread, and we'll see if you can get as far as Beretta got?
Should the theory of evolution be taught in such a way that it is understood to be sufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth today? No
Should students be taught that there are various views related to the diversity of life that have not been scientifically proven including some that suppose that supernatural events took place? Yes
Unfortunately once again, this is just opinion. Science deals with testable concepts, not with myth, maybe and magic. Such philosophical questions can be taught in philosophy classes, but we should not lie and pretend that they are science.
This would give the student the same opportunity that you and I have. To seek out the truth!
Indeed. I think comparative religion should be taught as well as philosophy.
The big question though, is how you teach them to test for truth. How does one determine that a statement is true?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Wumpini, posted 04-28-2008 8:59 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Wumpini, posted 04-29-2008 6:47 AM RAZD has replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 63 of 356 (464741)
04-28-2008 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Phalanx
04-28-2008 9:25 PM


What do scientists believe?
Phalanx says:
the scientific community already accepts this as a scientific fact.
What exactly does the scientific community accept as scientific fact?
I agreed that we can observe changes in the populations of organisms in the world today. That is a fact. I am sure that the scientific community is in agreement with this fact.
However, my point was that these changes were not sufficient to explain the diversity of life as it exists on the planet today.
I do not believe the scientific community is in agreement that natural evolutionary causes are sufficient to explain the diversity of life on the earth today. It may be taught that they are in agreement. This may be what you were taught. But, I do not believe that to be true.
First, I have read numerous theories by different scientists that contradict one another. Some of these theories deny that abiogenesis is possible. No life - no evolution. Some of these theories deny that complex changes are possible. No complex changes then no sufficient explanation for the diversity of life. Do you see where this is leading?
Second, I looked on the internet to see what scientists believe. Do you realize that only 55% of scientists believe in evolution by natural causes. The other 45% believe that their were supernatural explanations. Forty-five percent of scientists polled believe in creation or theistic evolution.
You say:
Science class does not ever have anything to do with the supernatural. The mention of the supernatural does not belong in science class.
If you are going to eliminate the supernatural from evolution then you need to eliminate 45% of the science teachers.
But what this really tells us is that 45% of scientists do not believe that the theory of evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life on this planet.
Here is a link to the Gallup Poll information:
Many Scientists See God
If almost one-half of scientists do not believe the theory of evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth, then why in the world would we teach this as a fact to our children?
We really need to evaluate what are schools are teaching as fact!
Thanks
Edited by Admin, : Shorten link.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Phalanx, posted 04-28-2008 9:25 PM Phalanx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Granny Magda, posted 04-29-2008 12:42 AM Wumpini has replied
 Message 65 by Phalanx, posted 04-29-2008 2:17 AM Wumpini has replied
 Message 66 by Taz, posted 04-29-2008 2:33 AM Wumpini has replied
 Message 67 by Annafan, posted 04-29-2008 4:50 AM Wumpini has replied
 Message 78 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-29-2008 10:19 AM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-29-2008 10:27 AM Wumpini has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 64 of 356 (464750)
04-29-2008 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Wumpini
04-28-2008 11:07 PM


Re: What do scientists believe?
Hi Wumpini,
Your survey does not say what you seem to want it to say. Firstly, it does not appear to be a "Gallup poll" as such. The article is unclear on who exactly carried out the poll, only that it appeared in American Men and Women of Science".
quote:
The survey, which had a 60% response rate, asked scientists the same Gallup Poll question posed to the public in 1982 and 1991.
It is clear that the survey used the same questions as the 1982/91 Gallup polls, but not that Gallup carried out the polling. Also, it is worth noting that a presumably self-selecting 60% response rate is not great from a statistical point of view, but it is hard to say what kind of bias this might impart, if any.
My main problem is with your claim that;
Wumpini writes:
what this really tells us is that 45% of scientists do not believe that the theory of evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life on this planet.
The survey says nothing of the kind. It says;
quote:
Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process.
This tells us that 40% (yes, that's 40%, not 45%; presumably, there were 5% who didn't commit either way) believe that God had some role in human origins, but not that they consider that evolution would have been impossible without God. This 40% figure doubtless contains many different shades of opinion, from out-and-out creationists, to those who merely believe that God created the conditions for evolution, as per this quote;
quote:
Two biologists from Ohio refined the question about God and evolution. One said, "God created the universe and principles of energy and matter, which then guided subsequent evolution." The other said God did not guide the process "but did create the conditions that allowed the process to take place."
These two scientists would clearly be included in the 40% figure, but they are clearly a long way from your characterisation of their position as believing that "the theory of evolution is [not] sufficient to explain the diversity of life on this planet". Belief in God as a prime mover does not equate to disbelief in evolution as being the explanation for biodiversity.
The vast majority of scientists believe in evolution, even if many of those involved in this survey are so-called "theistic evolutionists". When considering biologists, I am sure that the figure would be much higher in favour of evolution. For a good idea of how widely accepted the theory of evolution is, visit the NCSE's Project Steve. The project boasts 822 signatories to a statement in support of evolution. That my not seem many, but when you consider that only scientists called Steve, or derivatives thereof are allowed to sign, it puts things rather into perspective. Since only about 1% of US residents are called Steve, Stephan, Stephanie or similar, this suggests that there are at least 82 200 scientists who support evolution! That some also believe that God set the process in motion is not relevant in a science class, where such subjective (and horribly un-parsimonious) concepts have no place.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Wumpini, posted 04-28-2008 11:07 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Wumpini, posted 04-29-2008 5:05 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Phalanx
Member (Idle past 5712 days)
Posts: 31
From: Old Bridge, NJ, US
Joined: 10-12-2006


Message 65 of 356 (464754)
04-29-2008 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Wumpini
04-28-2008 11:07 PM


Re: What do scientists believe?
Wumpini writes:
If you are going to eliminate the supernatural from evolution then you need to eliminate 45% of the science teachers.
Firstly, that 40% of scientists believe in theistic evolution (a number I'll use for argument's sake, since I find this to be grossly high) does not mean that 40% of science teachers believe in it, as the 2 are not connected.
I'd like to see the breakdown of the responders to the survey by field of study. To be frank, I value the opinion of a physician about as much as I do that of a custodian when it comes to evolution - neither of them actually study it and neither have any real foundation in its evidence. So, I'd like to see how many of the responding biologists felt this were the case.
All that being said, I don't much care whether you believe God helped evolution or not. God does not belong in the science classroom. If you want to teach theistic evolution, take it to your philosophy class. Science does not deal in the supernatural. As I said before, the supernatural is antithetical to all that is science.

And the Ignorant shall fall to the Squirrels - Chip 2:54

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Wumpini, posted 04-28-2008 11:07 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Wumpini, posted 04-29-2008 5:31 AM Phalanx has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 66 of 356 (464755)
04-29-2008 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Wumpini
04-28-2008 11:07 PM


Intellectual dead-end
How does fire work? Goddunit. Why do we fall downward? Goddunit. What makes lightning? Goddunit. Why do people get sick? Goddunit... Satandunit.
Can't you see the obvious intellectual dead-end?

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Wumpini, posted 04-28-2008 11:07 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Wumpini, posted 04-29-2008 6:10 AM Taz has replied

Annafan
Member (Idle past 4578 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 67 of 356 (464759)
04-29-2008 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Wumpini
04-28-2008 11:07 PM


Re: What do scientists believe?
Wumpini,
did you ever check out 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution?
This is highly recommended before you continue "discussing" the ("lack of..")evidence for evolution, because it will save you and us a lot of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Wumpini, posted 04-28-2008 11:07 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Wumpini, posted 04-29-2008 5:46 AM Annafan has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 68 of 356 (464760)
04-29-2008 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Granny Magda
04-29-2008 12:42 AM


What do scientists believe?
Granny says:
Firstly, it does not appear to be a "Gallup poll" as such. The article is unclear on who exactly carried out the poll, only that it appeared in American Men and Women of Science".
It appears to be an independent survey of scientists based upon Gallup Poll questions that were asked to a sample of all Americans about their views on evolution.
This tells us that 40% (yes, that's 40%, not 45%; presumably, there were 5% who didn't commit either way) believe that God had some role in human origins
If you read the rest of the article, you will see that the other five percent believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible for the creation of mankind.
With the 40% that believe God helped out the evolution process, that gives us a total of 45% that believe that God was involved in the process that resulted in the diversity of life that we see on this planet today.
That is my point!
Therefore, the statement that the scientific community agrees with the theory of evolution as stated is false. According to this survey, 55% of scientists believe in the theory of evolution as stated. 40% of scientists believe the diversity of life on earth is explained by a combination of supernatural causes and natural causes. And, the other 5% of scientists believe the diversity of life on earth is explained by supernatural causes.
If God is required to be involved in the process, then we cannot say that these scientists believe that evolution (natural causes) is sufficient (in and of itself) to explain the diversity.
I have stated that I believe that changes (evolution) are taking place at the present that we can observe. However, I would place myself with the 45% of scientists that believe that God is involved in the process that explains the diversity that we see today. Therefore, it would be incorrect for you to group me with those that that believe natural causes are sufficient for the diversity. It would be dishonest for you to state that I am in agreement with those who believe in the theory of evolution as stated in this thread.
If the argument is to be made that the scientific community agrees with the theory of evolution as stated in this thread (that natural causes are sufficient to explain the diversity), then we need not ignore the voices of those scientists.
The voices say that scientists are divided on the question of whether natural causes are sufficient to explain the diversity in life that we see today. Even if the survey is not statistically accurate (which you have not given any evidence to show that it is not), the results would indicate there is a division. And it would appear that this division is close to the middle - 55%/45%.
If we are to teach people, we should teach them the facts!

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Granny Magda, posted 04-29-2008 12:42 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 04-29-2008 9:00 AM Wumpini has replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 69 of 356 (464761)
04-29-2008 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Phalanx
04-29-2008 2:17 AM


Are you saying scientific opinions are of little value?
Phalanx says:
To be frank, I value the opinion of a physician about as much as I do that of a custodian when it comes to evolution
Maybe this can explain why there is so much division in the scientific world related to the origin of life, and the theory of evolution. Not much value is given to the opinions of those that disagree.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Phalanx, posted 04-29-2008 2:17 AM Phalanx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Phalanx, posted 04-29-2008 3:00 PM Wumpini has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 70 of 356 (464762)
04-29-2008 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Annafan
04-29-2008 4:50 AM


Thanks for the link
Hello Annafan,
Thanks for the link. I will most certainly look through the information.
As I have stated before, I do not deny the theoretical process of evolution. I believe that changes do occur over time, and given significant time these changes could be significant. However, I am not convinced that this natural process is sufficient to explain the diversity that I see in the world today.
I will listen to the opinion of anyone, and evaluate any evidence that is presented. However, that does not mean that I will jump on the "evolution answers all questions" bandwagon until I become convinced by the evidence. As of now, I am not convinced by the evidence.
Thanks again

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Annafan, posted 04-29-2008 4:50 AM Annafan has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 71 of 356 (464763)
04-29-2008 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Taz
04-29-2008 2:33 AM


Why the patronizing attitude?
Taz says:
Why do people get sick? Goddunit... Satandunit
I do not forsee any beneifit that can be derived from us exhanging evidence, ideas or opinions.
Can't you see the obvious intellectual dead-end?
It is apparant that my intellect has not evolved to the point of yours.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Taz, posted 04-29-2008 2:33 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Annafan, posted 04-29-2008 6:53 AM Wumpini has replied
 Message 80 by Taz, posted 04-29-2008 11:44 AM Wumpini has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 72 of 356 (464764)
04-29-2008 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by RAZD
04-28-2008 10:40 PM


I am not ignoring your post
Thank you for your response to my post.
I am not ignoring your response.
Based upon a member's suggestion, I have decided to read the document on the talk origins website related to the evidence for macroevolution before I continue with this disscussion.
Thanks

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 04-28-2008 10:40 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 04-29-2008 6:10 PM Wumpini has not replied

Annafan
Member (Idle past 4578 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 73 of 356 (464765)
04-29-2008 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Wumpini
04-29-2008 6:10 AM


Re: Why the patronizing attitude?
Wumpini,
you have to understand that some people here get fed up easily with the many new posters who clearly lack a lot of information, but still go around shouting how there "is no evidence", how there "is great disagreement between scientists" etc. etc. Instead of showing a bit of humility, and at least covering the criticism up as honest questions.
Not that I'm targeting you specifically here. It's just that having many like those around, has conditioned some regulars into responding in a certain tone. ;-)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Wumpini, posted 04-29-2008 6:10 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Wumpini, posted 04-29-2008 8:59 AM Annafan has not replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 74 of 356 (464772)
04-29-2008 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Annafan
04-29-2008 6:53 AM


It really does not bother me too much
Annafan says:
Not that I'm targeting you specifically here
and you say:
how there "is great disagreement between scientists"
and you say:
new posters who clearly lack a lot of information
It sure appears that you are targeting me since I was dealing with this question only five posts earlier.
I attempted to gather and show evidence (information) for the division that appears to exist between scientists. I thought that was what discussion was all about. I show evidence that there is division. If someone disagrees with that evidence or my conclusion, then they should provide evidence that shows my research is incorrect, or that my logic is flawed. I am not a scientist, but that sounds kind of scientific to me.
No offense intended. I truly appreciate your input and guidance!
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Annafan, posted 04-29-2008 6:53 AM Annafan has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 75 of 356 (464773)
04-29-2008 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Wumpini
04-29-2008 5:05 AM


Re: What do scientists believe?
Wumpini writes:
It appears to be an independent survey of scientists based upon Gallup Poll questions that were asked to a sample of all Americans about their views on evolution.
Polls based upon self-selection are notoriously unreliable, and raw poll results are notoriously difficult to interpret and analyze properly. It was conducted not by polling professionals but by "a reporter for the Washington Times and...a historian of science." Maybe we can trust this survey, maybe not.
But for the sake of discussion just accepting the poll results described in the article, it doesn't support your claim that many scientists do not accept evolution as a sufficient explanation for the diversity of life. Right at the beginning of the 2nd paragraph of the article quotes a South Carolina mathematician saying:
"I believe God could work through evolution..."
This contradicts your assertion that many scientists share your view that evolution is insufficient to explain the diversity of life. Another quote from the article from Duncan Porter says this:
"I am surprised to find that so many are theistic evolutionists."
A theistic evolutionist is someone who believes that God works through evolution, not someone who believes evolution is insufficient to explain the diversity of life.
If you're looking for evidence that many scientists believe as you do, you haven't found it yet. And you won't. The vast majority of scientists, perhaps as many as 99%, accept evolutionary theory as the explanation for life's diversity. And in science class we teach the theories accepted by scientists.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Wumpini, posted 04-29-2008 5:05 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Wumpini, posted 04-29-2008 9:10 AM Percy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024