Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy

Oh, well, problem solved. For a start, teaching about the opinions people have about evolution has absolutely no place in a science class. Science class is for science. Opinion is for humanities classes. If the opponents of evolution want to criticise the theory, then they need to come up with an evidence based alternative, a testable, predicative, positive theory, supported by a weight of actual evidence; in other words, they need to do some science. No such theory has been forthcoming, ergo, evolution gets into the science classes, whilst vague ideas, religious convictions and unsubstantiated opinions don't. Maybe they can go in a philosophy, sociology or comparative religion class where they might be appropriate.As for a "significant dispute about the theory", I would dispute that. We must once again ask who is to determine significance. Myself, I just can't see how the opinions of creationists are significant in this context, given that the overwhelming majority of professional bio-scientists is that evolution is obviously quite real. Science is not a democracy. It is ruled by evidence. If creationists want to be considered significant, then they should do some science. Until then, creationism is of no interest to scientists. Maybe it would be better for us all to put our fingers in our ears and sing "la la la". You can embrace ignorance if you like, but I am in favour of educating kids. I thought you were a teacher? Do you really want to ban the teaching of science just because it upsets people of your religious persuasion? Sing "la la la all" you like, this isn't going to go away. What you mean is that you don't see gravity as being in conflict with the Bible, so that's OK, it gets a pass. Evolution on the other hand... Do you really imagine that any country can afford to leave evolution out of its curriculum? That would cripple further education, by forcing them to cover basic biology that should have been taught to students years earlier. Students going to foreign universities would be in for a shock when they found themselves completely out of their depth. Similarly, visiting students from other countries would be pretty pissed off when they found their course was being wasted on basic biology that they learned years ago.Scientific achievement in any such country would be shot in the proverbial foot and that nation would become an international laughing stock. All to appease a sub-section of Christians? Not likely. I regard ID as fringe simply because they can't be bothered to submit research to the standard scientific journals. If you don't do the work, you don't get the Nobel prize. ID'ists need to stop preaching to the converted, stop trying to interfere with education law, stop publishing glossy books aimed at gullible laymen and do some science, submitting it to peer review. They don't bother. The ball is in their court, it is their choice not to run with it.Kitzmiller v. Dover found that ID was not science. There is a reason for this. ID is just creationism masquerading as science, a cheap trick and one which hasn't worked. Evolution doesn't need propaganda. We have the fossils.By the way, if you are still having trouble answering my question about the lack of anachronistic fossils, perhaps you could come up with your own example of how Satan has warped the understanding of scientists.

---

Mutate and Survive

Well that obviously proves that anything that he may have said during his life is not credible, or worthy of consideration.The list that I gave of potential scientific "weaknesses" was to be a sample that may or may not be representative of what religous zealots are promoting should be taught to students in high school biology. You have now attacked the credibility of the man who put together the list. That tells me nothing. He could have put together this list from other creationist websites. I do not know. So does this mean that you agree or disagree with the items on the list, or do you even care?

---

"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

I said nothing about teaching opinions, unless you mean the opinions of scientists. There is obviously a controversy, and that controversy is not limited to ignorant creationists and atheist (agnostics) on internet discussion forums. Some of these disputes seem to be between legitimate scientists even though some of those scientists believe in God. Are you saying that “weaknesses” in the theory of evolution should not be discussed unless another complete theory is in existence to replace the present theory? I truly do not understand that logic. I do not know what those who are promoting this “teach the weaknesses” idea are suggesting should be taught. Maybe you can look at the list of weaknesses that I provided in another other post, and give your comments. This seems to be a cliché on this website. I wonder who started it? What makes you think that I am not? Teaching kids alternative views is embracing ignorance? That does not make sense to me. I do not really know what any country can afford. I do know one thing though. No country can afford to leave out God. I said nothing about not teaching basic biology. You know that evolutionary theory, especially as it relates to hypothesis about the past, is only a small part of basic biology. I am sorry if I have not answered all of your questions in the past. I still have not figured out how to keep up with what posts I have and have not answered, or what questions I have or have not answered. I hope you will forgive me.I explained in earlier posts that I do not believe that Satan physically tampers with any evidence. Satan does play upon the desires of men and women. Scientists enter into their field with many human weaknesses, and preconceived ideas. Satan has the ability to monopolize on those weaknesses and create bias through their belief system. You may not believe that to be true, however I do. Many people make judgments that are knowingly or unknowingly contrary to the truth for many different reasons. Scientists are not immune from this.

---

"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

Because of the level of accuracy and veracity I have seen from creationists, I take anything they say as subject to independent verification.The fact that the originator of this list is a creationist would lead me to believe it's the same old nonsense that's been refuted a thousand times dusted off and recycled for a gullible audience.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Contradicted by fact and a strawman. PE does not say what this suggests it says. Contradicted by fact. Not a weakness:
"Often" is an overstatement. In fact, the overall results are very much in agreement. The cases where both methods have been used, where the methods agree and the interesting cases where they disagree should indeed be taught in a moderately advance biology course. They are instructive and supportive of the evolutionary model. Strawman: as usual your source doesn't know what PE is about. A major distortion of fact. Major enough to be considered a lie. Contrary to fact but a half truth depending on how you define "entire ...column". Then a deliberate glossing over of the truth that lies in the details. Contrary to fact. Obfuscating noise that actually has no meaning. We'd have to see the definition of "net genetic complexity". In all cases I've seen so far it turns out the person using such terms actually has no definition for them. True but misleading because of the context it leaves out. The actual fact is that dating methods are, in the vast majority of cases, in agreement and keep producing very consistent results.This is the perfect example of why the whole "weaknesses" thing is insidious and destructive.The major value in spending class time in teaching the details of each of these "issues" would be the demonstration of the deep dishonesty and ignorance of those supplying such lists.

No, it proves no such thing. Your list proves that what he says is not credible and not worthy of consideration. The list is, indeed, representative of what religious zealots are promoting. When you find more items in another list they will all be of similar quality.

You said; Since "much of the world" covers rather more than just scientists, I took your statement to mean what it said. Vanishingly few bio-scientists doubt the reality of evolution. Here is some criticism of your favourite Gallup poll, taken from TalkOrigins;

quote:

---

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country.

---

This makes the dissenting voices look pretty damn marginal. Even the most generous interpretation puts the total of US scientists who don't believe in evolution at a measly 5%. That's crap. What's more is that they lack any kind of evidence. That sucks. It's hardly what I would describe as being a significant controversy.Oh and, by the way, saying that "some of those scientists believe in God" is a massive understatement. Evolution denying atheists are rarer than hens teeth (which, as luck would have it, are another interesting piece of evidence for evolution, see here ). For now I think I'll leave your list of amusing PRATTS for Nosy to deal with. Maybe I'll have more time tomorrow. Aristotle. "So goodbye to Plato's Forms for they are no more meaningful than singing 'La la la'". You said; I was responding to that. That is not teaching an alternative view, that is just opting not to teach at all. A pretty surprising opinion for a teacher. You'll talk yourself out of a job at this rate. If you say so. Science classes can manage just fine without him though. Rather better in fact. As Dobzhansky had it, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.". Evolution is an essential aspect of biology. To ignore it is to invite ignorance and sow the seeds of confusion, just as the creationists behind this "strengths and weaknesses" tosh doubtless intend. I know what you're saying. I just wondered if you could actually show me a specific example of where scientists have allowed their desires to cause them to misinterpret evidence and what the correct explanation might be. No hurry.Edited by Granny Magda, : Fixed the thing that needed fixing.

---

Mutate and Survive

Forgive me for harping on this subject to the exclusion of many others equally good targets. I have some background in the subject.The "information" the creationist websites have on radiometric dating is liberally laced with nonsense. If some error appeared, say, in Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Weiland’s The Answers Book (Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1992), you can be sure it is repeated time after time on the creationist websites.I have found a lot of errors in creationist literature dealing with radiometric dating.On two occasions I found errors dealing with radiocarbon dating that apparently first appeared in The Answer Book that later appear on at least six creationist websites. And they are bonehead errors, but the creationists didn't bother to check the original sources -- they were so overjoyed to find an error in radiometric dating that they just copied it into their websites as if it were accurate.And tens of thousands of creationists assumed these points were correct, and dozens or hundreds of them probably posted them on this and other similar websites as proof that radiometric dating is inaccurate.And now, these "errors" in radiometric dating are being used to sell this new nonsense, "strengths and weaknesses" as legitimate science.What we're seeing is creation "science" at it's best -- a mix of errors, poor scholarship, religious zeal, and outright propaganda -- all adding up to a huge collection of falsehoods.(If you are really interested I can document those two errors that showed up on at least six creationist websites, along with other errors which I have found in fewer than six websites. But I don't think anyone who knows creation "science" will doubt my claims, and most creation "scientists" won't accept my findings as meaningful no matter how well they are documented.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I really did not expect you to like the list. I took it verbatim off the internet only to help move the discussion along.What makes you think that this list is the "perfect example?" Have you looked at other lists?What led you to judge the entire “weaknesses” thing based upon this one list as being "insidious and destructive?" Are you basing that opinion upon the entire creation/evolution debate, or upon other examples of this “weaknesses” thing that you have reviewed?I believe you have made a fairly rash decision based upon one list that may or may not be representative of the ideas that these people have in mind? I get the impression that the major problem is the usage of the word “weakness.” Scientists do not seem to want their “theory” given that characterization.I can look at this list and at your responses and see some merit to both sides of the controversy. You cannot allow one side to misrepresent the facts. However, you cannot allow the other side to say that because someone has misrepresented the facts, it proves that everyone is involved in the misrepresentation, and therefore their entire position is “insidious and destructive.”Let me ask a few questions to help clarify my understanding:Is there, or is there not a dispute between those who promote “punctuated equilbria” and “gradualism” in evolution? Should the existence of this dispute be made known to students? If not, why not?Is there, or is there not subjective interpretation that takes place in relation to fossils and the geological column? Should students be made to understand that there is subjective judgment involved in the development and utilization of this and probably other areas of science?Is it not true in science that conclusions are made about significant changes in the past that have never been observed in the present? Should students be made aware that because of the long periods of time that evolution takes to occur that these changes that are being suggested have not been observed taking place in the present?Should students be made aware of the problems with radiometric dating and the controversy that surrounds this area of science?Is it “insidious and destructive” to teach students the facts about evolution, even if those facts are controversial? Whether you call these facts “weaknesses” or you call them “areas that are still being perfected” really makes no difference. It seems that we should teach students that there are disputes and controversies that exist in this area of science.

---

"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

Yes, it is quite probably that I have read more creationist material than you have. This list is representative.It is, in any case, your job to supply lists of "weaknesses". You are the one that wants them taught. For now, let's take this as being judged on the material you supply to this specific debate. If you don't like the judgement being made on this one list -- supply some more. Since you think I have a wrong impression because of this one list -- give us some more. How many will it take before you think we have a representative sample? You are quite correct. This really only represents the value of Gabler as a source.It isn't from this material that I extend my opinion beyond Gabler. Let's leave it where it is until you supply more material. Again, I predict: more material will be of the same quality as this list.Prove me wrong. This is one of the topics that should be in a thread of it's own. But quickly: Darwin himself (much to my surprise!) was not a total gradualist. The debate over this apparently big issue (it isn't really) has, I think, I'm not a biologist died down some years (even decades)ago.I would hope that the concepts and reasoning behind the phrase "punctuated equilibrium" is taught in biology where evolution is taught. Generally the problem is, at the high school level, it is general biology only that is taught and a whole school year could be well spent on just evolutionary concepts alone. There isn't time. I'd have to be shown the details of where such interpretation comes in. I have certainly seen arguments over whether or not a new hominid fossil is a new species or not. At this level of detail there can be room for disagreement.I'm not aware of any such disagreement in general about the geologic column. What is discussed at length is the quality of field work that goes into dating a very specific sample. Please give an example of such a change that is not being observed now. Speciation is observed in progress right now. Once that happens we are also observing incipiant higher genera too. Is that what you mean? Geology students are made aware of the problems with radiometric dating. You have to know when to apply various methods, how to correctly gather and handle samples, what precautions must be taken in the lab and how to cross check your results. This is standard procedure.
The kind of "problems" you think you are talking about (from your Gabler list) don't exist in the way you think they do. My "insidious and destructive" comment refers to the list you have supplied so far. These are not facts. These are examples of ignorance and/or dishonesty. As an example of their destructive effects we can take yourself. You have been mislead, badly mislead by your sources. Before you can move forward and learn the actual science involved you have to now dig yourself out of the hole that people like Gabler have dug for you. There are disputes. The challenge is to pick the right level to teach them at. The nature of the disputes that I am aware of would make them really difficult at the high school (and maybe even undergrad) level. The amount of base knowledge you need to understand both (or several) side(s) of the arguments can be pretty large.I think it would be constructive for students to go over the history of the development of the whole area from a century before Darwin all the way through to the early 20th century to see the controversies over issues.I think it would also be useful to go over the fuss over the punctuated equilibrium idea too. ( We could probably find other instructive examples -- H. florensis would be fun today) The details give some insight to the messy real world of scientific advancement. However, we'd have to decide if we were teaching biology or history of science. They are both interesting but we might find ourselves, little by little, teaching only science in high school with no time for math, english, art or football. Somehow I don't think that is your intention.

So are you usually in the habit of quoting a lot of BS in order to "move the discussion along"? Because by whatever means you chose it -- at random, or because you thought it was an above-average example -- it's significant that the one you grabbed turned out to be total horse manure from start to finish.Doesn't that give you pause? It should. If the very first orange I pulled off the display at the grocery store stank to high heaven and was full of maggots, wouldn't that be a strong sign that the people running the produce department are at best incompetent, and at worst willing to knowingly sell their customers tainted food, and that I should probably shop elsewhere?And what would it mean if I spent the time to examine *all* their inventory, on many, many, many different days, over many years, and found a consistent pattern of 100% spoiled food, so bad that the people running the store couldn't possibly have remained unaware of its condition, especially since I and countless others have repeatedly pointed it out to them? That, my friend, is the state of the anti-evolution propaganda served up daily by the creationists. I'll bet he has, because he has obviously arrived at the same conclusions as the rest of us who have spent years looking over the creationists' wares.I myself have followed this "controversy" for over thirty years, and intensively studied both science and creationism at length. I'm the kind of guy who reads textbooks for fun. Right now I'm working my way through "Molecular Biology of the Cell".I have looked into this issue at great length, and debated creationists for literally tens of thousands of posts on various forums, from way back before the internet even existed, and it is my considered opinion that yes, Virginia, the creationists are consistently wrong on almost everything any time they attempt to critique science. They issue long screeds full of gross falsehoods, gross fallacies, gross ignorance masquerading as knowledge, and heaping helpings of spin, propaganda, and attempts to mislead.Through the years creationists have flung literally thousands of "lists" at me containing what they purported to be grounds for doubting evolution or some other aspect of science they feared might clash with their religious beliefs.Every time -- let me repeat that, every time -- I have fact-checked a creationist critique of science, I have found it to be without exception shockingly devoid of honesty or accuracy, and never once -- again, let me repeat, never once -- did their broadsides contain something that actually rose to the level of scuffing the wall of the science they were attempting to lay siege to.Does that answer your question? If he's like the rest of us who have become thoroughly disgusted at the chicanery of the anti-evolution kooks (and I use that word after careful consideration and will be more than happy enough to justify its use), it's because we've watched their antics for a very long time. I believe you are wrong in concluding that he bases his opinion on only the BS-filled list you chose to provide here, and I assure you, it very much is representative of the kind of stinking manure that passes for "information" on creationist sites. They don't like lies and propaganda being presented as actual "weaknesses" of science when those lies are actually false slanders, no. Are you surprised? Really? What is the "merit" to lying about science and trying to get those lies into classrooms where they will misinform and poison the brains of countless students? Bingo! We don't say that the creationist attacks on science are insidious and destructive just because "someone" has misrepresented the facts, we say it because they ALL do. Yes, I'm aware that "all" is a very strong claim. I suppose somewhere out there, there may be an honest anti-evolutionist or two. Frankly, though, I have yet to meet him/her. Every single one I met to date has been a scurrilous liar, and often the person he's lying to most desperately is himself, but he has no compunction about telling lies to others. I've been lied to and lied about by anti-evolutionists literally more times than I can possibly count. Yes, but not of the kind the anti-evolutionists dishonestly present it as. The actual kind of dispute? Sure. And for the most part it is presented to students as an open question, which is still being researched. Should the dispute as it is commonly grossly distorted by the anti-evolutionists be presented to the students? Hell no. Your first question is vague in the extreme. You'd need to clarify it before I could give something like an actual answer. However, students are already informed of the methods used to determine things about fossils and the geologic column, and the limitations of those methods. Again, however, it would do a great disservice to students to pass on to them the enormous whoppers that the anti-evolutionists like to tell about these topics. You're being vague again -- such as?In any case, science students -- unlike the creationists who keep misunderstanding these things -- are properly informed about how science tests and validates theories about things that can't be "observed taking place in the present". The creationists like to claim that anything concluded about anything at all is just a wild guess unless "you were there to see it", but this is complete nonsense, and shows a gross ignorance about how science works, how it validates things, and how it accurately gains knowledge about things that are too small, too large, too fast, too slow, too energetic, too long ago, etc. to sit and watch happen with the naked eye. What problems would those be? I've seen hundreds of creationist claims of "problems with radiometric dating". Every single one -- repeat, every single one -- has turned out to be lies and/or idiocy when I've checked into their claims.So which of these lies are you advocating be taught to students? Which "controversy" do you want to teach the students -- that this area of science is very well validated, but there are some ignorant kooks who want to keep tilting at windmills about it because they're religiously motivated to spout nonsense? Okay, fine, I have no problem with informing students of the fact that there are nuts who think dating methods are "controversial", just as there are nuts who still think the Earth is flat or is the center of the Solar System. Don't be surprised when some parents object, though. Not at all. That's likely not what he's objecting to. He's objecting to the *lies* about evolution getting forced into the classroom. As am I. And they are taught to students. They certainly were when I went to school.What isn't taught, however -- what shouldn't be taught -- are the great loads of deceptive and misleading and error-filled propaganda that the creationists want to sneak into schools all dressed up in big Trojan Horse with "teach the controversy" scrawled on the side, packed full with lies purposely calculated to try to turn students away from science and towards the religion of the creationist.

It's off topic, but countries with low levels of belief in God are generally more successful than countries with high levels of belief in God. You shouldn't use the word "know" so freely, when "believe" is the correct word to describe a view based on blind faith.Sorry about the O.T., but empty claims like that shouldn't go unchallenged.

Okay, remember you asked for it. None of them are legitimate weaknesses in evolutionary biology, all of them are dead wrong or grossly dishonest/misleading, none of them should be "taught" in high school biology classes, except as examples of the kind of fallacies and errors the creationists are in the habit of making. Blatant lie #1 Grossly misleading, it says that the fossil record will have *some* gaps, not that there are "systematic gaps", because there aren't. This is a repeat of Blatant Lie #1. Blatant lie #2 Blatant lie #3 -- no, Neo-Darwinists don't say that.
Blatant lie #4 -- no, PE doesn't require "sudden leaps" as big as is being claimed here. Grossly misleading -- they often disagree on the details, down at the level where one would expect the data to be not necessarily sufficient for resolving differences. In other words, down in the expected "margin of error". There have been no unresolvable contradictions on the larger scale, or of the kind that require overturning the basic methods of using anatomy and/or biochemistry in determining phylogenies, nor of the kind that would call into question the overall results of either method. This is just silly. Blatant lie #5 -- no, it doesn't say that. Blatant lie #6 -- that's not what it says either. Blatant lie #7 -- no one in science is claiming that a lack of evidence proves anything.
Blatant lie #8 -- even if they did, that wouldn't actually be an example of circular reasoning. Blatant lie #9. Silly, and not really accurate. It's not just "evolutionists", as the study and use of index fossils was in use before Darwin, and whether or not they "lived only briefly in geologic time", the point is that certain fossils consistently appear only in certain strata, and thus can be used to help identify those strata when found elsewhere. Blatant lie #10 -- no they don't. Again, index fossils were used well before Darwin, before anyone had any notion of *why* there might be changing fossil appearances across strata. Silly -- no one claims them as singular "proof" of "evolutionary assumptions". And again, index fossils were found to be in certain strata -- this was an observed fact long before anyone had any notion of how to explain why they would. Blatant lie #11 -- there are many locations where the entire geologic column can be found. Unsupported claim. Every time I've seen some creationist attempt to give a specific example supporting this claim, it's been something stupid like human remains buried in ancient strata (i.e., someone actually dug a hole in an old layer and used it as a burial hole), thus producing "older strata containing younger fossils", or like an old fossil bed crumbling down from a cliff face, then getting buried by younger sediment. I have yet to see any solid example of a fossil clearly showing up in the "wrong" strata, like a rabbit skeleton found in its original location in Cambrian rock. On the contrary, the creationists really need to explain how the millions of fossils found to date always end up neatly sorted into an evolutionary pattern. Blatant lie #12. This one's really a huge whopper. Thousands of transitional forms have been found in the fossil record.
I suppose the weasel-word here is "undispusted" -- nothing in science is incapable of being "disputed" by some kook somewhere. Even Archaeopteryx, for which many very good specimens exist, and has over a dozen features which exist only in birds today but not reptiles, and over a dozen other features which exist only in reptiles but not birds -- the very model of a transitional species, caught partway through the evolutionary changeover -- is handwaved away by stubborn creationists as, "that's not really a transitional, it's just a plain ol' bird!" Idiots. Wow, a repeat... Trying to pad the list? Straw man -- no one claimed it was. Variation plus selection plus replication, however... Misleading -- while it's true that there was an increase in genetic complexity between the first cell and man, it's still false to say that "evolution requires increased net genetic complexity. No, it doesn't. It often produces that, yes, but its' not "required", and it's also evolution when a genome is simplified for greater efficiency. Misleading -- that's not all it does. It can also result in many kinds of alterations of the genome beyond mere shuffling, including gene duplication, which the author conveniently "forgets" to tell his readers about. Again, that's not all they do. Gene duplication is itself a mutation. Gene duplication (as well as other kinds of genetic insertions) followed by the alteration of one of the copies is indeed a net increase in genetic complexity. The author is either grossly ignorant of genetics, or purposely misleading his readers. Grossly misleading. These particular examples have been cherry-picked, carefully avoiding examples in which novel genetic complexity *has* been identified.
It's also grossly misleading to imply that the cherry-picked examples must be "non-evolutionary" just because there was "no increased net genetic complexity" -- that's quite false. Grossly misleading -- in the examples the creationists keep flinging around, the reasons for the conflicting dates are well known, such as improper sample preparation, inappropriate use, known contaminants, etc. It's no surprise that if you use a yardstick poorly, you'll get incorrect measurements. But it's shockingly dishonest to use a few such examples to try to claim that yardsticks as a measuring device, or the concept of "length" in general, are too unreliable for use and that their results should be ignored, especially when vast numbers of reliable, consistent, validated, cross-checked results have been obtained with yardsticks, and cross-checked with results arrived at using many independent methods of measurement.Yet again, we see that creationist "problems" for evolution are actually gross misrepresentations and blatant lies. I'm not impressed, but I'm hardly surprised.

The problem is not teaching weaknesses of Evolutionary theory, it's picking it out for special attention as needing teaching of the weaknesses. There's no more reason to spend a long time teaching the weaknesses of Evolution that there is of gravity, Newton's laws of Motion or any of the other things taught in schools. This has nothing to do with balanced teaching of Science and everything to do with propagating the lie that Evolution is in some way "not proper science" or "just a theory".Now, I'd love to see Science education that moves on from presenting facts to teaching about how we know what we know, and teaches the subtle distinctions between what is certain, less certain and speculation. But it's just not possible for mass education in the time available. I recall having about two hours of teaching on Evolution at school. Two hours. Two hours is barely enough to communicate the bare bones of the Theory, and certainly not long enough to deal with teaching it's "Strengths and Weaknesses".

Actually, that is not my job. It is the job of those who are involved in this controversy in the state of Texas. At the best, this exchange of ideas between us is a mental exercise. I doubt very seriously it has any impact on what the state of Texas does with their textbooks. I would hope that we both want them taught. It is only a matter of what they are taught. I do not think you have the wrong impression because of this one list. I think you have already made a decision that is based upon your understanding of the entire evolution/creation controversy. I think we may have already come up with a few items that are a representative sample. I am not trying to prove you wrong. Each one of the items on the list would require a separate thread to debate. I do not view that as the topic of this thread. It appears that we agree that students should be taught that alternative theories exist regarding the rate at which evolution occurred. That is at least a start.Even though you disagree with the wording of the items on the list related to fossils, it could also prove that students need to be taught that the fossil record is jerky, or appears in spurts rather than conforming to gradualism which appears to be the theory accepted by science today. Maybe I am wrong, but I do not think these people are promoting that the entire year be spent on controversies. I think it is realistic in the entire education of a child to spend one day of class or two emphasizing that a particular theory is disputed and analyzing a few of these areas of dispute. I was mainly thinking beyond the field of biological evolution to other areas and fields of science. I have been studying climatology and the evolution of the earth, and it seems that scientists make assumptions about circumstances in the past that are different than what they are seeing today. The reason they make those assumptions is to make everything work out. It is similar to what accountants do when they plug a number into the equation to make things balance. It seems that this could be happening in biological evolution also. The evidence related to speciation seems to be very limited and subject to interpretation. I believe there are other threads that are in progress right now discussing this evidence. I do not think you need to teach high school students all of the implications of radioactive dating. However, if you are going to teach these students that dates in the millions and billions of years are factual then it would seem that you should take the time to help them understand that there are disputes about the methods, assumptions, and interpretations used to reach those dates. Once again, we are not talking about a significant amount of classroom time. If you open the students minds to these areas, then they can easily go into more depth if they so desire on their own. Research in the days of the internet is a little different than when you and I were younger (I am assuming your age by what I assume to be your picture). Since Gabler is dead, we may never know whether he was intentionally being dishonest. It appears from the Wiki article that he challenged many different textbooks outside the areas of science seeking changes and corrections. It does not appear that these actions were all religiously motivated. It also appears that he truly believed that there were problems with textbooks related to the teaching of evolution. Whether he viewed these problems from a point of ignorance, or religious bias, I do not know. I do not think Gabler or anyone has dug a hole for me. Fortunately, I am not limited by the constraints of needing a naturalistic approach for everything, as it seems that most of you are. Therefore, I am not dependent upon science to provide all of the answers that I need. I reproduced Gabler’s list as an example. I was not making a determination on the adequacy of the list. I only wanted your feedback as a starting place. I agree. The issues discussed above would not take significant classroom time in my opinion. If you can take the time to teach gradualism, then you should take the time to teach an alternative view if it has scientific merit. It appears that the evidence may go either way. From my limited view of the evidence over the past month, I would lean towards the idea that evolution was not gradual. If you do not teach gradualism, then you would not have to teach alternatives. Maybe this would be a partial solution to the problem. I do not think it would have to be a science course. Maybe you could propose this idea to the state of Texas. I doubt that those involved in this controversy would agree though. If there are two legitimate sides to an issue, then it does not appear correct to teach only one side. That is indoctrination. I do not believe that is what scientists want to do with our children. We should teach both sides, or neither side. If I had to come up with a small but representative list based upon our brief exchange then I may suggest the following.

• Teach alternative theories about the rate of evolution.
• Help students to understand the difficulties, the assumptions, and the controversy related to dating.
• Help students to understand the process of interpreting fossil evidence, and how the same evidence could be subject to different interpretations.

I would not say these would be considered to be weaknesses of evolutionary theory. However, they may be considered limitations of the scientific method in general.

---

"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