Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy

Hi Wumpini, The bit I highlighted is the problem. What is significant and how are we to determine this? I would argue that the weaknesses of the ToE, such as they are, pale into insignificance besides the overwhelming evidence in favour.Given that you do not wish to see evolution "singled out", am I to assume that you are in favour of issuing caveats at every stage of science education, so that students time is wasted on the "weaknesses" of the germ theory, or the "weaknesses" of plate tectonics, and so on, ad nauseam? That sounds like a colossal waste of time, which brings me to my next point; The whole truth? What, all of it? I would like that as well, but I'm afraid that just isn't humanly possible. There is such a wealth of information about evolution that it is already impossible to know it all, and that knowledge is expanding all the time.It is only possible to teach some of the truth. Lesson time is limited and there is only so much that can be covered. It is also worth noting that most students are not going to pursue the study of biology beyond high school level, so this makes the time spent on high school biology even more precious; for most students, it's all they will ever get on the subject.Why should we waste their valuable time teaching spurious so-called "weaknesses" when they could be spending that time actually learning something useful and true?The involvement of the Discovery Institute makes it pretty clear that the efforts to introduce this kind of nonsense are simply attempts to undermine the teaching of evolution and get creationist propaganda in by the back door. As usual it is motivated by religion, not science.Science lessons should reflect the scientific consensus, because that gives students the best chance available of hearing the truth. Fringe opinions, such as ID, should not be suppressed, but there is no need to waste time teaching them, especially at high school level. Well great, me neither. I don't think anyone is suggesting this, least of all anglagard. On the other hand, when people who believe in God profess to opinions that are suspect, non-scientific and irrational, I see no reason why those opinions should not be challenged and I certainly don't see any reason why schools should be obliged to teach those opinions.Creationists have plenty of churches from which to spread their propaganda, why not stick to them and leave science class for the teaching of actual science?Edited by Granny Magda, : Tidying up.

---

Mutate and Survive

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

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

I know that you have plenty to answer already, so I'm not going to say anything beyond this, which I just can't leave to go unchallenged. There you go again, talking about assumptions and interpretation of evidence, yet, when challenged to provide alternative interpretations of the fossil record, you go quiet.Scientists are not making assumptions. That would not be science. What they are doing is drawing conclusions based upon evidence. It's no use saying that scientists are making erroneous assumptions if you can't point to an example of an "assumption" and provide an alternative explanation for the evidence.

---

Mutate and Survive

I quite agree. Any explanation ought to conform to the usual requirements of science, at least, it should if its proponents want to see it taught in science classes.Actually, a supernatural explanation that made some kind of logical sense would be something at least.

---

Mutate and Survive

Well good, we're in agreement that then.Disputes within evolutionary biology are about the minutiae of evolution, about exactly what happened when and how it happened. This does not constitute a weakness in the theory as a whole, indeed, it is a sign of the healthy function of science. I had the impression that you were a teacher, I don't recall exactly where from, but feel free to put me right, it doesn't really matter. He means, er, you know... evolution. As per the usual definition of evolution in biology. Not just macroevolution but the whole process.The point he is trying to make is that evolution is the answer to so many questions in biology that it is essential to the modern life sciences.Why does a bower bird make its bower? Evolution.
Why do peacocks have such exaggeratedly large tails? Evolution.
Why do we never see fossil dolphins in the same strata as trilobites? Evolution.To leave evolution out of curricula, as you have suggested in this thread, is to leave far too many questions unanswered. Evolution is central to biology. The practical work that biologists do on the ground is almost invariably informed by evolution. Biology without evolution would be a joke. The Dobzhansky quote is oft used because it is true.

---

Mutate and Survive

Perhaps you don't understand it because I never said that. Which I didn't. Because interpretation is part of how science works. Obviously. That is by no means a weakness. That is a fact of life. There are alternative interpretations of individual fossils, there are alternative interpretations of exactly how different species are related to one another. There are alternative interpretations of exactly how evolution progresses. What there is not is an alternative interpretation of the fossil record as a whole that does not involve evolution.Just for the record, here is a potted version of the scientific method, from the Wiki page of that name.1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)You keep saying that you do not believe in evolution. I challenged you to provide an alternative explanation for the lack of anachronistic fossils. I'm still waiting. What fossils? There may be debate over the specific interpretation of specific fossils, but there is no controversy within the scientific community, as I have already demonstrated to you. "Less than 0.15 percent of relevant [US] scientists" do not constitute a significant controversy.Now let's look at assumptions. Science on the whole makes only one assumption; that our evidence is real and that we can accurately observe it, i.e. we assume that reality is really real. Beyond that simple and obvious truism, there should be no assumptions in science beyond the very early steps of having an idea and formulating a hypothesis. By the time a scientific paper is published it should be entirely free of assumptions, being instead composed of conclusions based upon evidence.The theory of evolution is not dependent on any particular assumption, beyond the one outlined above, which is an inescapable part of everyday life. If you disagree, feel free to point out the assumptions on which the ToE depends. Such as? Strewth. Let me try to explain this again. You are the one who believes that evolution depends on assumptions. I am asking you to show me these "assumptions". I don't think you are going to be able to, because I don't think they exist. The clue to this is the fact that I placed the word assumptions in quotation marks.Now I'm going to ask you again, as clearly as I can;
What assumptions does the theory of evolution depend on?
What non-evolutionary alternative interpretations can you provide?

---

Mutate and Survive