Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy

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

Do we have a list of those things that are being proposed to be included as “weaknesses” in the textbooks? Or, are we making assumptions about what would be included based upon prior or current arguments? Could you or someone give me some specific realistic (not a strawman) examples of what would be included as a weakness in the textbooks besides the Cambrian explosion? Are these weaknesses that do exist present in the current textbooks? What would you consider to be the major weaknesses in the “Theory of evolution?”Is it not true that in the past the textbooks have included numerous false characterizations that were considered strengths for the “Theory of Evolution?” If that is so, then at a minimum with the amount of controversy that is involved in this area of science, it seems that a more careful review of textbooks should be made by those involved on both sides of this controversy.Some of those on this forum know about my little middle school textbook on evolution. Many of you have told me that this textbook, which has been used as recently as a few years ago, is not accurate. If this is the case, then there definitely appears to be a problem with textbooks on evolution (and other subjects as well). It seems that we need to be careful to properly portray both the "strengths and weaknesses" of the “theory of evolution” and all other theories in these textbooks.

---

"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 do not think that evolution should be “singled out.” If there are weaknesses in scientific theories then they should be taught. If there are significant controversies related to theories then they should be revealed to the students. Let the students make their own conclusions based upon the evidence that is provided about these weaknesses and controversies. I do not hate Texas. I have a lot of friends there, and I go visit them often. I want my friends and their children to know the whole truth about evolution, and all of those other topics that you have listed.Although, it seems that many of the topics that you have listed have nothing to do with science. I do not know why you have them listed. The controversies related to Charles Manson and Bigfoot do not seem comparable to the controversy related to the scientific “Theory of evolution?” This seems to be an attempt on your part to make the questioning of anything scientific sound ridiculous. I do not want the truth to be limited by those who have determined that everything that comes out of the mouth of someone that believes in God is suspect, non scientific, irrational, and should be hidden from the rest of the world.

---

"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

Hi Granny, We could just let me decide what is significant? That may work! I am sure that there would still be controversy though. By the whole truth, I did not mean teach them everything that science believes to be true about evolution. I meant to teach them that there is a controversy that exists and much of the world does not believe that the “Theory of evolution” is the truth. Make sure that students understand that there is a significant dispute about the theory. Since most students are never going to pursue a field that requires knowledge of biology, maybe it would be better to leave all teaching about evolution out of textbooks, and out of the science classroom. Those students who are interested in pursuing a career in a field that requires that knowledge can take special classes. You may have come up with a solution to the entire problem.I can already hear the response. Should we leave out the theory of gravity, and the theory of everything else too? We do not have controversies that are taking up a lot of resources and energies in those areas. Exactly in line with what I just said. Let us spend the time that children have in school wisely, and teach something useful and true. Leave evolution completely out of the curriculum. Why is ID called a fringe opinion instead of a theory? I have not looked at what they promote but I thought it was science based. I believe if you look on the internet that those who are pushing the “theory of evolution” have a large propaganda machine themselves.

---

"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

Hi NosyNed, I would think it would be fairly easy to set aside one class or so throughout the education of a child and teach them that there is a significant controversy in the world regarding the “Theory of evolution.” You could tell these children that today we will be looking at some of the areas of this theory where the religious zealots indicate there are weaknesses. You could also tell the students that the only reason you are teaching them these things is because you are required to do so by law. That would let you off the hook so no other scientists could say later that you were questioning this ironclad theory.I was only joking about me being the one to select the areas of weakness that should be included in the textbooks. I was hoping that some of you would tell me what the major areas of dispute were that you thought students may be taught as a part of the science curriculum. However, not one person could come up with one weakness that needed to be taught, although some did indicate that there were weaknesses with the "Theory of evolution." That makes me wonder why there is no desire to make children aware that there are two opposing sides to this issue. I searched on the internet and came up with a quick list of scientific weaknesses that is promoted by one website. Maybe you can tell me how many of these are strawmen, and how many of them are contradicted by facts according to your prediction. I am not suggesting that we debate any of these suggestions. All I desire is a comment regarding whether it is a legitimate weakness in the theory, and whether it should be taught as such to students in high school biology class.

---

• No fossil evidence for gradual evolution - "Punctuated equilibria" theory admits the systematic gaps between life forms in the fossil record, and the lack of evidence there for gradual evolution.
  ​
• No known mechanism for rapid evolution - Neo-Darwinians say no known genetic mechanism can produce the sudden evolutionary leaps envisioned by "punctuated equilibria" theory.
  ​
• Conflicts between anatomy and biochemistry - Phylogenies based on comparative biochemistry often contradict phylogenies based on comparative anatomy, and multiply the number of missing transitional forms in the fossil record.
  ​
• Circular reasoning in "punctuated equilibria" theory - Punctuated equilibria" theory says evolution occurs too slowly to see it in the present, and too quickly for the fossil record to capture in the past. This is circular reasoning: the lack of evidence for evolution proves it happened.
  ​
• Circular reasoning in the standard geological column - "Index fossils" are fossils of life forms that evolutionists think lived only briefly in geologic time. Evolutionists position rocks in the Standard Geological Column by the stage which their index fossils represent in the presumed evolution of life. Thus the Standard Geological Column reflects evolutionary assumptions but does not prove them.
  ​
• Subjective interpretation of the standard geological column - No actual single example of the entire Standard Geological Column exists in nature. The alleged evolutionary ages of rock strata do not always match the alleged evolutionary ages of some of the fossils they contain. Supposedly younger strata sometimes contain supposedly older fossils. Supposedly older strata sometimes contain supposedly younger fossils.
  ​
• No undisputed transitional forms in the fossil record - No actual single example of the entire Standard Geological Column exists in nature. The alleged evolutionary ages of rock strata do not always match the alleged evolutionary ages of some of the fossils they contain. Supposedly younger strata sometimes contain supposedly older fossils. Supposedly older strata sometimes contain supposedly younger fossils.
  ​
• Variation is not "micro-evolution" - Evolution requires increased net genetic complexity (between the first cell and man, there had to be new genes). Recombination reshuffles chromosomes. Mutations restructure DNA. Neither increases net genetic complexity. Darwin's finches, Kaibab and Albert squirrels, industrial melanism (spotted moths), penicillin-resistant bacteria, and DDT-resistant insects are non-evolutionary adaptations of existing life forms to new environments, involving no increased net genetic complexity.
  ​
• Flaws in radiometric dating - Radiometric dating methods give conflicting dates for the same object and/or for different samples of the same object.

---

Here is a link to the website that was the source of this list. Since they are Educational Research Analysts located in Texas, this list may or may not be representative of the types of weaknesses that are being promoted by those that are referenced in this article which is the topic of this thread.http://www.textbookreviews.org/index.html?content=T-705-t...

---

"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

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

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

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

Now who is treading on a thin line with intellectual honesty? What is this position that you think I put forward and need to retract? I made myself very clear from the beginning that I had no idea what the proponents of this teach the “weaknesses” thing wanted to include in textbooks. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to state that I know what they were proposing should be taught. I was hoping that you could give me some idea of what they were proposing, so we could decide if they were “weaknesses” or not. If you do not know what they are proposing, or do not wish to reveal what they want taught, then say so.If you want to end the discussion because it is not moving in the direction that you hoped, then do so. However, do not threaten me with intellectual dishonesty if I do not retract a position that I have never taken. I made my position clear from the beginning. I said: I asked you guys to give me some idea of what these "weaknesses" were. I was given a link that led no where. I then jokingly made this statement. When exactly did it become my job to supply lists of “weaknesses?” You and others have indicated that there are weaknesses in the “theory of evolution.” You and others have also indicated that the reason that these “weaknesses” cannot and should not be taught is a lack of classroom time. In other words, the school system has time to teach the strengths about evolutionary theory, but not the weaknesses of the theory. I guess that should make perfect sense to me. And now, you want me to search out arguments from creationist websites (PRATTS) so that you can attempt to defeat them and feel good about what you are not teaching.The website that I was given a link to had this to say about those who refuse to teach both sides of the theory.

quote:

---

We've noted an interesting evolution of arguments by the Darwinists. In 2003, they said weaknesses were too complicated to be taught to high school students and had to wait until college. Later this morphed to having to wait until grad school and later to post doc work only. Now the true colors come out--they can't tolerate ANY criticism of Darwinian theories at any level, even if it does NOT include creationism or intelligent design but is merely a robust discussion of strengths and weaknesses of evolution!

---

Texans for Better Science Education If you are knowledgeable about other items that are not on this list then why do you not bring those items forward and put them on the table. Then we can determine whether those items should be taught. You are correct. And you seem to have a better idea than I do as to where we may find this list. Why do you not provide that information? If there is no controversy then why does this website exist? If there is no controversy then why is there a website that is proposing the teaching of “weaknesses” for this theory? From what I have read on the internet and in biology textbooks, there seem to be some who think there are alternative theories. For example:

quote:

---

Recently, some biologists have suggested that the underlying assumption of gradualism, that macroevolution proceeds at a uniform pace, is incorrect. They argue instead that macroevolution occurs in fits and starts.

---

“The Living World” by George B. JohnsonThe Wiki encyclopedia entry on the internet calls this a theory. That would tell me that there are at least two different theories regarding the rate of evolution in the past. If that is incorrect then I will have to learn it from somewhere other than where I have been looking.Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia I am sure that you are the one determining what is or is not a legitimate controversy. There have been all kinds of problems with the fossil evidence every since the theory of evolution has been proposed. The lack of transitional fossils has caused fraud after fraud, and misinterpretation after misinterpretation to be revealed. Why would anyone believe that what exists today is any different? So are you telling me that these people that want to teach the “weaknesses” only have one potential item that they are interested in teaching?

---

"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 there were disputes. I did not say that they doubted the reality of evolution. Scientists can dispute the theory of evolution without rejecting the theory entirely. What kind of teacher do you think that I am? You seem to keep bringing that up. I do not ever recall telling you what I do for a living. Or, are you fishing? This quote may be overused. There were 47,300 hits on Google for this quote alone. With the speed of my internet connection, it would take me months or years to look at all of those references. It will suffice to say that I really do not know what this guy means by evolution. If he means macroevolution then I do not understand why he would say that biology makes no sense without this theory.

---

"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

Well, we wouldn’t want to do that now would we? What do you think a scientist does when they find a fossil? What process does that scientist go through? I do not understand why you guys keep saying that scientists do not interpret evidence, that they do not make assumptions, and that there is no controversy. It makes no sense. It is like you are all listening to the same broken record, and for some reason are believing it to be true. Maybe I can help to solve this problem. You can do these searches for yourself.“Interpretation of fossil” - There were 145,000 Google hits on this search. I looked at the first couple of pages and they appear to be all scientific type of links.“Alternative Interpretation” fossil - There are 8,220 Google hits on this search. I looked at the first couple of pages and they appear once again to be scientific.What do these links say? There are a lot of alternative interpretations of the fossil record. There is significant debate and controversy taking place regarding these fossils. These are not creationist links (at least not the ones I was looking at). These are disputes between scientists regarding their interpretation of the fossil record. You would not have science if you did not assume that there were certain scientific principles that you could rely upon. And those conclusions are based upon many things including certain assumptions. You just said that scientists do not make assumptions and now you are talking about erroneous assumptions. Which one is it?

---

"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 really do not know what weaknesses the Discovery Institute teaches. I have never read the stuff on their website. About all I know about them is what I have heard on this forum over the past month or so. I know they promote ID and argue something about irreducible complexity. Beyond that I could tell you very little about their arguments. As for other creationist websites, I have only read a little off their websites. I have actually learned more about the creationist websites from talk origins then from the websites themselves. I would not go that far. You are an evolutionist and I am a creationist so there has to be an argument, doesn’t there? It just may not be in this thread.My position is that children should be taught the truth. My understanding was that this thread is dealing with a particular issue. That issue is that a certain group of people are proposing that “weaknesses” in the theory of evolution be placed into textbooks in Texas. I do not know what those “weaknesses” are. If I did then I could give my opinion on whether they are “weaknesses” and whether they should be taught in school. As I said, I do not really know what they are proposing. If certain words make people feel better then I am all for using those words. Good. The list could have been a strawman. It appears we have no idea what the real list will include.As for there being no weaknesses related to dating, I do not agree. Although, that is a debate for another thread, and one that eventually I will attempt to discuss. We do not already know that there are no such “weaknesses” as the proponents want to put forward. How can we know that without looking at what they are proposing? That confuses me. It has not been harder than I thought because I have never looked for these “weaknesses” beyond going to the one link that I was provided, and a quick Google search that brought up the Gabler list. As I said before, it is not me that has to show it. Sooner or later, I would assume that someone is going to present something to the education board or whoever they present these things to. At that time we will know what they are proposing. Unless you know of a way to get access to that information now, I am sure we will have to wait. Is the comment true? Do evolutionists have difficulty tolerating any criticism of the “Theory of Evolution.” I think to some extent it is true. This is especially true if that criticism is coming from creationists. I would imagine that it is also difficult to accept criticism from other scientists, if that criticism could appear to support any creationist view. I disagree. I am not saying there are not people on both sides of this controversy that are lying. I am also not saying that there are not people on both sides of this controversy that are self deluded. However, that is not why the controversy exists. That is only a symptom of the controversy. It would be like saying you are sick because you have a running nose, and a fever.The controversy exists because there is a dispute as to whether God was involved at any time in any of the natural processes that we are witnessing today. If God was involved, then your conclusions (scientists) about the past are wrong. It is that clear and simple. If God was not involved, then your conclusions about the past may be right (but based upon the history of science they are probably still wrong). Not completely wrong, but steadily moving in that direction of becoming more right.If God was involved though, your conclusions will never be right. That does not mean you cannot understand the present. It only means that your interpretation of the past will always be wrong.I say that you (science) are wrong. Does that make me a liar? Not in my opinion. You say that I am wrong. Does that make you a liar? Not in your opinion. Do you think that I am deluded? Probably. Do I think that you are deluded? Most certainly. That is the controversy. It is irreconcilable. There can never be an agreement.

---

"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 am not sure what you are wanting to see. Granny was acting like there was no alterntive interpretations of the fossil record. There are thousands of links with this type of wording. That in itself should tell us that there are different interpretations of the same evidence by different scientists. That is the point that I am trying to make.Maybe when I get some time I will try to go through some of them.

---

"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

Hi Bluescat,I really am not understanding your post. I would think the first defintion would apply to a scientific theory. Here is a definition I found: [quote] [b]Assumptions to formulate a theory[b]This is a view shared by Isaac Asimov. In Understanding Physics, Asimov spoke of theories as "arguments" where one deduces a "scheme" or model. Arguments or theories always begin with some premises”"arbitrary elements" as Hawking calls them (see above)”which are here described as "assumptions". An assumption according to Asimov is:

quote:

---

something accepted without proof, and it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false, since there is no way of proving it to be either (If there were, it would no longer be an assumption). It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality. ... On the other hand, it seems obvious that assumptions are the weak points in any argument, as they have to be accepted on faith in a philosophy of science that prides itself on its rationalism. Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible.

---

[/quote]Theory - Wikipedia

---

"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