Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1 of 177 (469407)
06-05-2008 1:28 PM


From today's New York Times: Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy
Might require a subscription, but it's free.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix link.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by bluescat48, posted 06-05-2008 1:34 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 4 by subbie, posted 06-05-2008 7:40 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 06-05-2008 7:50 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2008 10:44 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 13 by Wumpini, posted 06-07-2008 1:36 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 146 by Fosdick, posted 06-13-2008 11:16 AM Percy has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 2 of 177 (469408)
06-05-2008 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
06-05-2008 1:28 PM


Idiocy {including original content of this message - Adminnemooseus}
{Worthless and inflammatory half of a one-liner hidden. 24 hour suspension almost handed out. Stop it before I quit feeling so tolerant! - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Original message "hidden" and "{Worthless and inflamitory half of a one-liner hidden. 24 hour suspension almost handed out. Stop it before I quit feeling so tolerant! - Adminnemooseus}" posted in its place.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 06-05-2008 1:28 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-05-2008 7:05 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 3 of 177 (469488)
06-05-2008 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by bluescat48
06-05-2008 1:34 PM


Official warning and flag message
I feel I was being generous when I didn't issue a 24 hour suspension for the previous message. Post material that moves an on-topic debate forward, or don't post.
This message also functions as a flag so I can more easily track that I did a moderation effort here.
No replies to this message - Doing such also might get you a 24 hour suspension.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by bluescat48, posted 06-05-2008 1:34 PM bluescat48 has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 4 of 177 (469493)
06-05-2008 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
06-05-2008 1:28 PM


Something that would be both funny and helpful at the same time:
Put together a curriculum collecting creo misunderstandings and explain why these things in fact are not weaknesses of the ToE.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 06-05-2008 1:28 PM Percy has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 5 of 177 (469496)
06-05-2008 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
06-05-2008 1:28 PM


What do you know, creos do evolve after all. And I was hoping ID was an evolutionary dead end.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

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 1 by Percy, posted 06-05-2008 1:28 PM Percy has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 6 of 177 (469517)
06-05-2008 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
06-05-2008 1:28 PM


The wonder is why Texas school boards are important to Idaho, and when people will decide that science textbooks should be based on science and not popularity.
quote:
“When you consider evolution, there are certainly questions that have yet to be answered,” said Mr. Fisher, science coordinator for the Lewisville Independent School District in North Texas.
But, he added, “a question that has yet to be answered is certainly different from an alleged weakness.”
Mr. Fisher points to the flaws in Darwinian theory that are listed on an anti-evolution Web site, strengthsandweaknesses.org, which is run by Texans for Better Science Education.
“Many of them are decades old,” Mr. Fisher said of the flaws listed. “They’ve all been thoroughly refuted.”
Different name, same old (hide the pea) game.
From the link:
quote:
Weaknesses Discussion - Evolutionists' Quotes Critical of Evolution - Fossil Record Gaps - Darwin's Finches - Haeckels' Embryos - Miller-Urey - Macro vs Micro Evolution -
Some Well Known Weaknesses
There are numerous weaknesses in evolutionary theory, such as its inability to explain the Cambrian Explosion, the Chemical Origin of Life, the Development Pathways at either the molecular or morphological level, or the Origin and Improvement of Information in the Genetic Code. Comments by Evolutionary Scientists on Various Weaknesses in Evolutionary theory are located here. Note that these scientists still believe in the general concept of evolution, but recognize numerous weaknesses in and shortcomings of the theory.
The fact that no other explanation exists doesn't seem to disturbe them ...
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 1 by Percy, posted 06-05-2008 1:28 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 06-06-2008 6:34 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 06-06-2008 7:28 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 7 of 177 (469659)
06-06-2008 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by RAZD
06-05-2008 10:44 PM


Just something a little off the side. I think we have only ourselves to blame for the continuing misunderstanding of the cambrian explosion. An explosion is by definition a sudden release of energy in a short time. Ignorant people take one look at "cambrian explosion" and they get the idea that millions of species came out of no where over night.
I also blame popular sci-fi movies for spreading the false pretense that evolution means a cat morphing into a dog and then morphing into a bear in a couple days.

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 6 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2008 10:44 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Deftil
Member (Idle past 4456 days)
Posts: 128
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 04-19-2008


Message 8 of 177 (469671)
06-06-2008 7:12 PM


Why would anyone take anything the Discovery Inst. says about science seriously? Everyone knows they were behind ID which has mostly been shot down. And after the Wedge Document was exposed, aren't any claims they make regarding evolution automatically discredited?
Wedge strategy - Wikipedia

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 9 of 177 (469675)
06-06-2008 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by RAZD
06-05-2008 10:44 PM


The wonder is why Texas school boards are important to Idaho, and when people will decide that science textbooks should be based on science and not popularity.
That answer is alluded to in the article: Texas has a central approval process for textbooks, and a big population. If a publisher can get on the approved list here, he's almost assured a pretty good chunk of sales just in Texas. If I remember right, only five texts were approved for high school biology in 2003, the last time biology books were reviewed. And if he can publish just a single biology text that's on the Approved List somewhere, he can likely sell a lot of copies in other places, too - including states that let local school boards approve their own texts.
Fun state to live in

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2008 10:44 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by anglagard, posted 06-07-2008 12:45 AM Coragyps has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 10 of 177 (469679)
06-06-2008 7:54 PM


I wonder if there is some kind of annual secret creo convention where creos meet to conjure up ways to take over the world.

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

anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 11 of 177 (469720)
06-07-2008 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coragyps
06-06-2008 7:28 PM


Everythings Bigger in Texas (including self-destruction)
Coragyps writes:
Fun state to live in
Yes, looks like my daughter may have to go out of state to continue her education. No use in getting a degree from a state whose educational system is an international laughingstock.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 06-06-2008 7:28 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 06-07-2008 1:28 AM anglagard has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 12 of 177 (469725)
06-07-2008 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by anglagard
06-07-2008 12:45 AM


Re: Everythings Bigger in Texas (including self-destruction)
Actually, Texas right now has the most prosperous economy in the union. Because of high oil prices, oil wells that previously weren't worth getting to are now worth getting to.

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 11 by anglagard, posted 06-07-2008 12:45 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by anglagard, posted 06-07-2008 1:39 AM Taz has replied

Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5764 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 13 of 177 (469726)
06-07-2008 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
06-05-2008 1:28 PM


What do you think?
I read the article in the New York Times with interest for a number of reasons. I have not kept up with this dispute over the years, so I had not been aware of the intensity of the arguments or the enmity that is evident in the controversy between the two sides until I came to this forum. This article does give me a little better perception from an outside source.
The article does not appear to present any ground breaking news. The controversy has been going on for many years, and it appears that there has been many attempts in the past to have the scientific world recognize that there are “weaknesses” in the “theory of evolution.” I would think that there are weaknesses in all scientific theories to one extent or another. I would also think that when you study those theories that you should be made aware of the strengths and weaknesses. It seems obvious to me that when you study a particular scientific theory the emphasis in teaching will be upon the strengths of that theory, but you should not ignore the weaknesses.
That brings a question to my mind which was also raised in the article as can be seen by this quote:
quote:
“Why in the world would anybody not want to include weaknesses?” Dr. McLeroy said.
What would be the reason for a group of people to argue that the weaknesses of a particular theory should not be required to be taught? Why would they argue that they are under attack when another group proposes that any weaknesses to the theory of evolution be taught in the classroom?
Is it because the theory has no weaknesses? If that is the case, which I doubt in this situation, then it would be legitimate to argue that you should not teach weaknesses that do not exist.
Is it because the proponents of the theory are concerned that the strengths of the theory cannot overcome the weaknesses that would be taught? If this is truly a fear, then I believe it would be dishonest to conceal anything. The facts of the theory need to be taught in the classroom. If there are facts that provide strength to the theory then they should be taught. If there are facts that weaken the theory then they should be taught.
Is it because the proponents of the theory are concerned that by allowing weaknesses to be taught it would give some the opportunity to teach alternative theories, or religion in the guise of science? I believe this may be the reason for the controversy. Proponents of the theory of evolution are concerned that if you require teachers to reveal and discuss the weaknesses of the theory of evolution then it will open the door for those teachers to introduce alternative theories including creation or intelligent design in the science classroom. Therefore, it seems that proponents of the theory would sacrifice the teaching of the facts because of the fear that alternative theories may be introduced, and some of these theories they may consider not to be scientific or suitable for the science classroom.
Now my question would be, should that fear by the proponents of the theory of evolution allow something other than the full truth about evolution to be taught? In my opinion, of course not! Should safeguards be introduced so that supernatural explanations will not attempt to replace true science (which only allows natural explanations) to become a regular part of the science curriculum. In my opinion, of course they should be put in place. But this should not mean that all of the significant strengths and weaknesses of the theory cannot and should not be taught.
As I said above, this article is really not news. The language that they are referring to as a new weapon in the creationist arsenal has been part of the curriculum standards in the state of Texas for around twenty years. The state has been mandating that the weaknesses of the theory of evolution be taught. Evidently, those who promote the theory of evolution have had control of the education board in the past and have been able to argue that the textbooks do adequately cover the weaknesses of the theory. That is interesting because when you look at another discussion that is taking place in another forum on this website they are discussing some frauds (lies) in the field of evolution. Many of these frauds have ended up in the textbooks. It seems that many of the textbooks in the past have had problems with misrepresenting the strengths of evolution. So it seems to me that the proponents of evolution are very interested in making sure that the weaknesses of evolution are not represented in the textbooks, but they do not seem to use the same diligence to make sure that the strengths of evolution are not misrepresented in those same textbooks. Maybe this is my misperception. However, I think it is something to consider.
Here is a quote that discusses when this requirement became part of the curriculum standards in Texas.
quote:
The “strengths and weaknesses” language was slipped into the curriculum standards in Texas to appease creationists when the State Board of Education first mandated the teaching of evolution in the late 1980s. It has had little effect because evolution skeptics have not had enough power on the education board to win the argument that textbooks do not adequately cover the weaknesses of evolution.
The later part of this quote seems to tell us why this has become news. It is not because of new standards for textbooks. It is not because there have not been arguments for many years that the weaknesses of evolution should be taught. That is not why this is news today. It is news because the makeup of the education board appears to be shifting from one which is favorable to the promotion of the theory of evolution to one that is willing to challenge the theory as taught today. The board is changing to a makeup of one that is more inclined to demand that the weaknesses of the theory of evolution be taught in the classroom. This is evident by another quote in the article.
quote:
In Texas, evolution foes do not have to win over the entire Legislature, only a majority of the education board; they are one vote away.
It seems logical to me that if we want to educate the people in the world then they should be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories, and they should also be aware of alternative theories and explanations. If we want to indoctrinate the people in the world, then teach them only a limited view of what is possible. When we look at this controversy carefully, who is attempting to limit what is being taught? Why would a group of people want to limit what is being taught in a particular field of science? What do they possibly hope to achieve by pursuing this course of action? As I have said earlier, I have not kept up with this controversy. I was in college in the state of Arkansas about thirty years ago when the creation debate was in the courts in that state. Since that time it appears that the arguments have raged on, and many different theories have been proposed. Why is it so important that a group of scientists would lobby, and promote propaganda to support a scientific theory? In the end, will it not be the facts that will be the determining factor?
There is another quote in this article that I believe may lead us to some conclusions to these questions. Is their motive a search for the truth? Or, are they concerned about how the world will view them if they allow the weaknesses of a theory that has been accepted by the scientific world to be taught? The following quote may shed some light on this matter.
quote:
Views like these not only make biology teachers nervous, they also alarm those who have a stake in the state’s reputation for scientific exploration. “Serious students will not come to study in our universities if Texas is labeled scientifically backward,” said Dr. Dan Foster, former chairman of the department of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas.
I have raised a lot of questions in my review of this article which is the topic of this thread. I am not trying to start a debate about each or any of these questions. The general idea that I am attempting to put across is that there are two sides to every controversy. In the end, the theory of evolution will either stand or fall based upon the evidence. The theory will grow in strength or be weakened or falsified by the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence. It makes me wonder about the significance of the evidence when there are those who would promote that they are being attacked when they are confronted with the idea that the weaknesses of a particular theory should be taught. This article is not news about changes in the arsenal of one group in a controversy. It appears that the only news in this article is the change in the makeup of a group of people who are making decisions about what is going to be put in a textbook in a particular state. Should the weaknesses of the theory of evolution be included in these textbooks? What do you think?

"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 1 by Percy, posted 06-05-2008 1:28 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by subbie, posted 06-07-2008 1:58 AM Wumpini has replied
 Message 16 by anglagard, posted 06-07-2008 2:03 AM Wumpini has replied
 Message 44 by Dr Jack, posted 06-09-2008 6:40 AM Wumpini has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 14 of 177 (469727)
06-07-2008 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Taz
06-07-2008 1:28 AM


Re: Everythings Bigger in Texas (including self-destruction)
Taz writes:
Actually, Texas right now has the most prosperous economy in the union. Because of high oil prices, oil wells that previously weren't worth getting to are now worth getting to.
So what happens after the creationist governor and his cronies suck the wells dry that the geologists have already found. Use a combination of 'water witches,' 'doodlebugs,' and prayer to find more?
What happens to the state if they destroy the education system with the politics of so-called Christian demagogues? Guess they will have to import enough foreign talent to 'keep the trains running on time' so as to please the primary concern of what currently passes as the average Texas voter.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 06-07-2008 1:28 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Taz, posted 06-07-2008 2:47 AM anglagard has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 15 of 177 (469728)
06-07-2008 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Wumpini
06-07-2008 1:36 AM


Re: What do you think?
quote:
What would be the reason for a group of people to argue that the weaknesses of a particular theory should not be required to be taught?
The answer to this question, specifically as it relates to evolution, ir quite simple. The things that creos want to get presented in schools are not weaknesses in the theory of evolution. Broadly speaking, and off the top of my head, they all fall into one of these catagories:
1. A misunderstanding of the ToE.
2. A (probably intentional) mischaracterization of the ToE.
3. Nothing to do with the ToE.
4. Something actually quite well explained by the ToE, but creos don't get it.
Whether there are "weaknesses" in the ToE depends entirely on what one means by weakness. If you mean questions that the ToE can't yet answer, everyone who knows anything at all about it knows that there are millions and millions of questions that the ToE can't answer. Although it seems paradoxical, the fact that there are unanswered questions is one of the hallmarks of a vital and flourishing theory in any science. Any important scientific theory is going to point to vast areas of new research for further inquiry. Thus, if you mean that we should teach that evolution doesn't answer every question in the field of biology, I can't imagine that any scientist would object.
The reason why people are fighting against creo attempts to "teach the weaknesses" is because their idea of "weaknesses" is bad science, and because it's a blatant attempt to continue in their efforts to undermine the teaching of evolution. The obviousness of this is demonstrated by the fact that they don't want to teach the "weaknesses" in geology, astronomy, chemistry, physics, botany, or any other field of science (except, occasionally the portions of those disciplines that contradict their narrow reading of the bible).
I can absolutely guarantee that it has nothing to do with scientists being "afraid" of facing the "weaknesses" in the ToE. As many people have explained in many places on this forum, the lifeblood of science is exposing weaknesses of theories. Any scientist who could present an objection to the ToE that would undermine the acceptance of the theory would win a Nobel Prize and be the most famous scientist since Darwin.
Broadly speaking, the work of scientists can be broken down into three different types of activity. The first is creating and refining hypotheses and theories. The second is putting those theories into practical effect. The third is doing one's best to prove that any given theory is wrong, and the more well-accepted a theory is, the more to be gained by disproving it. That in large part is why Einstein is so famous. Not just because his theory is so revolutionary, but because the theory that he disproved, Newtonian Mechanics, was probably the most widely-accepted theory in the history of science.
The problem is not that there are no "weaknesses" or that scientists are afraid of "weaknesses." The problem is that the "weaknesses" that creos want taught aren't "weaknesses" at all, and certainly bear no relation to science in any way.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Wumpini, posted 06-07-2008 1:36 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Wumpini, posted 06-07-2008 10:08 AM subbie 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