Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy

Sure burden the state of Texas with teaching the supposed 'weaknesses' of the ToE. Every so called weakness opponents of science have offered, such as the Cambrian explosion, has already been refuted as a PRATT here and at many other sites.But why should just evolution be singled out for an exploration of weaknesses? In order to be fair and 'teach the controversy' should that not extend to all 'theories.'Here are some areas where 'teach the controversy' could be implemented:Holocaust denial
Aryan superiority
(here in West Texas we have the largest number of KKK members outside of the deep south, there will be no shortage of guest lecturers for the above two topics)
Superiority of men over women
Superiority of one religious belief over another
Homophobia
Germ theory of disease
Theory of gravity
Flat Earth theory
Hollow Earth theory
UFOs
Crystal power
Loch Ness monster
Bigfoot
Atlantis
Nemesis planet
Great pyramidology
Female 'circumcision'
Honor killings
Charles Manson's interpretation of the Beatle's White AlbumAnd so on.Why do you hate Texans so much you would force such idiocy upon us?

---

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

Ha, don't be so pessimistic. The last estimate I heard about the wells in Texas is that they should be keeping Texan economy going nice and strong for at least another decade. I'm pretty sure by then that we'd have enough alternative sources of energy like Mexican slave labor to keep the economy going nice and strong.

---

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

I know. You're more the Ann Coulter type.

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

But there is a Nessie!Edited by Brian, : No reason given.

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

Uh, wrong thread, jaywill.

---

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

quote:

---

Do we have a list of those things that are being proposed to be included as “weaknesses” in the textbooks?

---

If I recall correctly, this website was included in the article from the New York Times (I no longer have access to the article itself, so forgive me if I'm mistaken). Pretty standard creo fare.

quote:

---

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?”

---

As I said, the answer to this question depends entirely on what you mean by "weaknesses."

quote:

---

Is it not true that in the past the textbooks have included numerous false characterizations that were considered strengths for the “Theory of Evolution?”

---

It is not true.I don't claim to be a textbook historian, so I won't tell you that there haven't been errors in textbooks. But I will tell you that any such errors that I've ever heard discussed were not "strengths" for the ToE. They were at most, individual pieces of evidence thought to support it. However, given the vast weight and overwhelming amount of evidence that supports the ToE, no one single instance of fraud is enough to undermine it.

---

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

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

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

And if those "controversies" are phonied up by some creationist outfit like the Discovery Institute.And are completely unrelated to the actual controversies being debated within the field of study?And have nothing to do with established science?Then what?Edited by Coyote, : Unedit an edit.

---

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

Excellent idea! How about you give a list of those things that you think should be put into a high school biology course? These would be the left out "weaknesses" that you think should be made known.You can research on sites like the ICR and Discovery Institute.Here is a prediction:
If you supply anything they will consist of strawmen (strawmans? ) and things contracted by facts.Take your time. Give them up one at a time or in small numbers as you find them. If they are more complex you can start a new thread for each one and link to the thread from here.It will be interesting.

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

Yes, there are two opposing sides.Side 1: The scientific theory of evolution.side 2: The followers of the god of abraham insisting on magic and goddunit as an explanation.Hey, why not also teach the controversy between astronomy and astrology? What about chemistry and alchemy? The answer is very simple: because children are incapable of telling the difference between fact and fantasy. They gotta learn at some point that santa ain't real!

---

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

Isn't the author of that site, Mel Gabler, a well-known creationist?Here is a paragraph from Wiki:

---

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