Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution

The actual scientists can indeed be shallow (Will Provine, Kraig Agler) where the philosophers are not (Richard Boyd or M. Greene) and I would think that is what the thread header meant but I obvisouly do not nor interpret nor represent for said poster. It is not a high schoolers response to distingish the differently populated philosopers nor all of the data available to any given scientist.

NosyNed,
As Long as there are scientists "out there" (Wolfram) who think that NS was oversold in order to get beyond creationism there will be quesions in students mind provided any questioning scientists philosphy when not scientific hypothesis had/have not been disproven. Creationism can be a better part of "questioning" the hypothesis rather than testing for errors part of a curriculum which provides the student with critical skills in discrimination. I dont think it is hard to find creationist literature where testeable hypotheses are debated and tested rather you wondered how much time? Well when Wolfram spoke at Cornell and a studnet asked a rather elementary question that begged to take time away from others (and Wolfram WANTED to answer this student's question) the Harvard Graduated Cornell Math Prof said in public said student was in essence "stupid" which is THE WRONG thing to do. Same goes for students trying to sort out the background of creation and evolution. Some mount of time for questioning really does need an allowance and permitannce.And for the science itself in tis forground as long as biologists still fail to come to agreement about if or if and when other levels of selection can be modeled with the current understanding of evolutionary theory the student WILL be confused even if philosophically the differences can be handled on an advanced metaphysical level.Putting both togther frustrates me no end because economics WILL NEVER solve the PSYCHOLOGY that is what ought to be more properly available to the student before untold damages accrue. There is NO question that I have learned how to have an EXPANDED pallete of higher classification categories thanks to Creationism and Croizat's challenge to do away with ALL of Darwinism will never see the univerity student if this is not dealt with first or rather directly taught to the student who will be forced to make up some kind of confident esssay . For instance the following is a footnote of Croizat's I am presently working on which I can approach becasue I am aware of both "sides" even if IT is not duplicit.(Principia Botanica p 1476 #2 "Oligocene/Miocene is a conservative estimate. If one follows the history of science during the last century he readily learns that estimates of time which seemed at first extraordinary or incredible have in progression of learning been exceeded by far. Of course, there will be an end also to this growth, and the end may in a sense by now be in sight. However, most biologists are still inclined to think of ESSENTIAL TIME in adherence to standards which are by now PASSE. If I were to be pointedly asked after not only a few years spent in thinking about these and like matters what is my ultimate idea of time and space in nature I should answer that INFINITY comes first, its subdivisions by far second. Life is essentially immanent. It is droll in my understanding that facing "something" of this kind many biologists tend to turn to "mysticism" as their ultimate expression of it. There is no need for it: Rigorous laws of the most "mechanical" in their principles and operations are quite "mystical" in their ultimate raison d`etre; and he who pursues them in his quests finds prayer, poetry, and mathematics as one. Did CAUSA CAUSARUM create infinity, or is infinity itself CAUSA CAUSARUM? I could not answer, nor do I feel the need for answering. IT is essentially immanenet, and I am but part of IT."The jury is still out on ID in terms of this particular CC. I hope this helps.

So it SEEMS but what modern science has not accepted from Croizat is that he provides a METHOD not simply a book of statements/truisms. It seems that only Creationists are becomeing familiar with DOING this kind of statement. But because it only "seems" Croizat's work was generally rejected and so indeed I could start another thread somewhere else on it but the point of a creationist in me is that DOING panbiogeography ENTAILS doing creationism which in part DOES include rejecting some aspects of/in creationist thought. You are assuming only the less wide ground of the scientist and not the philosopher in that like Holmes I tend not to goolge for data anyone can find. The point that the curriculum would not be science at the end of the statement and more theology instead should be obvious as more rather than the less it was. This is a part of a discipline of non-Darwinin biology that includes part of creation science, part of Wolfram's simple program approach, and Mendelism
but just like subjecting you to the full me is rather more than less, the reejction of the student asking Wolfram the qeustion, or the "lunatic fringe that Simpson labled Croizat's vicarince etc with, the high school student needs rather the simple google results and not the full debatable argument even if you might still fail to pass the parameter (in). I made the argeument OPPOSITE to the point that the stuff is not science. It can be taught as part of "Critical thinking" at least. In that we should find agreement if it is not already so.What I said exactly goes to the point that is missing in that creation DOES need time to be taught BECAUSE the scientists and not the philosophers ARE IN REALITY too shallow this that to give *them* the power and authority to decide even what needs to go would be wrong. I was long because I also happen to believe and think that philosphers also ought not have the same ability on the college level. I dont know how one decides at the high school level as I have been away from that for years execpt to have curricula available to the local school board but what happens is that scietinsts fear that if students are given an open eneded elemetary education that like having to teach rich kids simple biology in college so they can be expensive doctors the profs will have ostentacious etc students newly up and coming they will loby the partents otherwise (it is my thought) creating FUTURE problems at the uni level THIS IS NOT THE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS' problem.I feel even we at EVC take this self-same "problem" out on them (randomly). Better teaching is always necessary. I know I could teach high school biology better if I had free chocie to FOLLOW what the students brought up rather than confine myself to the current neo-Darwinism. Teching TWO DIFFERENT sociolgies however WILL ALSO confuse the sudent in addtion to evey thing else I have already said in this thread and so THIS CONFLICT and not one of EVIDENCE VS SCIETISTS is what is STILL happening. That much we have gotten beyond here at EvC at least as to navigating posts. My guess is that instead of a philosphical difference (with me) you are trying to START your pedagogic point from the different CULTURAL differences. And as I said there are reasons scienfitically to question this but that is the more. Besides I would not use some general multicultural approach at the high school level but rather tailor the philossophy, science,and evidence to the needs and particular students in the class. This is however to ask the high school teacher to do a better job than the university prof which is obviously to ask too much.I hope this is clear to you. It is sound.Again I am long becuase even admitting the point, you miss, the origin it seemed to me. Maybe I was wrong. Prently however-- NOT!

Dont be then, but I didnt start another thread now did I?What's wrong with teaching the two model approach but keeping it in prespective? ??????

What do we need EC websites for? then?? If I understood you correctly you took all that space to simply say "it does not." did you not? For instance alternatives are needed in biological change because the basis for rigorous use of the 1st law of therm IS NOT the probablism used in the 2nd law generating a heterogenity in genetic algebras of populations should small diffusive effects in neutral evolution claims be needed adjudication once assertins of molecular clocks substitute for nonalternative hypothesis of non-Darwiinan closeness of life and earth changing together but I guess you would have not known that this is then would you not rather think it just a random word generation? It is not!![This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-08-2003]

Let's not let the tautological sayers be labeled as mockers and scoffers which this thread so far seems to have demonstrated.There was less substative engagement of my question so instead I will myself answer it.Baraminology can be taught to high school students in the excercise in critical thinking that shows cases of where vicariism is wholly TAXONOMIC. To use creationism as science in this classs will sort out the disagreements over a scientists time as to the issue of proper fidelity in general print that Croizat questioned if others (Nelson etc) were using his term vicariate in fidelity to the his (Croizat's) actual methodic use case and in particular in correspondence to Craw in New Zeland Croizat told Craw that EITHER chance dispersal or vicariance is to go. Because baraminology is a broader role for classfication than all phylogenetics, phenetics and cladistics combined THE STUDENT (even if the prof/teacher can not believe the implications) will be able to see beyond the cultural plurarlity because of polymorphism NOT polyphleticism (to which Croizat has been abused of using in the professional literature). This taxonmic strech can then be used to discuss vairous causalites allways now with an alternative keeping the less likely in a more deeper perspective to speak in short vulgarly. My contributions have not been followed up on in you nice thread head I guess because my respondents have not known first and foremost when not apriori how to deal with Croizat's "if for no better reason because the essential processes of nature long antedate man and his formal classification." which I can only explain if they only read this univocally in favor of evolution BEFORE the fact for as the thread with Randy showed because of dispersal vs distribtion we could not spot out the issue of polymorphism which here in the clearly teachable case shows up in age of species vs age of process of species formation but yet IN THE ACTUAL BIOLOGICAL LITERATURE it is not cleared up as to "In sum:Vicariism is not necessarily always taxonomic and geographic. It may only be taxonomic," p1485 Principia Botanica and thus instead it was asserted that EVOLUTION and NOT BIOLOGY OR TAXONOMY was a fact BUT AFTER THE TEACHING POINT FACT. We ARE back to basics and square one on the science and to assert otherwise is to put biogeography behind when it is acually in front of the disscussion on creation and evolution.For this unresolved scientific issue that IS possible to present in a currenly balanced form Croizat may presently sound as ifp1485 "Question 6 What you preach is clearcut "parallelism" in form-making, Is this not tantamount to "sperate creation"?...."Would "seperate creation" of the sort void of its meaning and basic process of form-making and translation in space which we have analysed in the answer to Question 5 to turn it only into a wilful act of God? I should leave it to the others to debate the answer."Croizat has left the c/e generation this "debate". Perhaps others would have been amazed instead of the creationist future implications the ones relative to Charles Darwin for in the same assorted pagination Croizat wrote, p1480"As, such (pan)biogeography os clearly here to stay, and its counterfeits are doomed already. The sooner we get rid of them, the better, even if this does mean throwing overboard virtually the whole of "darwinism" to retain evolution as a doctrine which has with Darwin and his work but a historical association. In its (pan)biogeographic formulation, evolution may be conveniently referred to the expression:...".We all have not lost our bark and bite. This balance comes out of nature not science of the sort p.1484 "So far for the TAXONOMY which we face. DISPERSAL IS HOWEVER NOT TAXONOMY; AND WHATEVER DISPERSAL IS EVENTUALLY TO CONCLUDE IS ESSENTIALLY TO BE FORMULATED IN FULL FREEDOM FROM TAXONOMY."Without the balance we SELL the tuition and public education lunch on the basis of the couterfeit!!!!!!please take note! The concepts are not imposible to provide in a sylabus. We need someone with a broad enough c-e background to write it.

Why did you avoid my point then? Do I need to give you chapter and verse, in this case taxa and geography, before you will see the point that can not only be meant but not forced. In the Croizat exemplar which devolves onto the difference of Iguanida and Agamidae Croizat had suggested that reproductive isolation gives a species the means when not also the ends to CONTINUE to change and not only to become extinct. If ONLY creationism can make this aspect of the evolution of life and earth available to the student then why not re-introduce it? A tradition of studying creationism CAN provide this lexic linguistics that MAY NOT be available to the evolutionist preciself because the best current scholarship tends to WRITE to this point of isolation and extinction rather than some physico-chemistry between the CONCEPT of dispersal vs distribution and age of a species vs age of species' formation. The difference of Gould and Dawkins falls "WITHIIN" this and yet this board shows there IS some "outside" to it all. By analogy then, I heard Shledon Glasgow lecture at Cornell "precisely" on Danjuns point of a table within the quark table to no known end and yet Crash didnt want to get it for his own particular idea on strings. There ARE physicists who doubt the threads but I dont know enough physics to judge Glasgow but I do know the difference between biogeography and biology and why isnt it "obvious" to NOW that studying creation DOES have a purpose which for the only legal reason here in the united states to preventing its re-introduction is that it must advance all of science is not an issue as I have showed short working out Croizat's lizards from the lounge it still drinks in for me that there IS advance if one only knows of the difference of chromsomals vs chromnemals even if the plant of animal will be IDd by tommarow.This is a step forward not back!!

USE BARIMINOLOGY TO TEACH WHEN VICARIISM IS ALL Taxonomic. Why do you guys refuse to acknowledge this? Is everyone so split on the issues that they cant see the eyes of a taxonomist of any kind?Introduce microevolutionDiscuss New SystematicsShow the differnce of Disperal and Geographic Distribution with a primer on BiometryBring up mutation and rates of changeIntroduce biogeographic vicarism by the acutal cases done in the literatureShow the controversy with cladistics on phylogenetics that didnt settle phenetic developments as to computer input and demonstrate creationist kind classifications of the same data is not thisCreate hypotheticals for BOTH baramins and age of speces vs age of species' formation (USE GEOLOGY for pricipaled orientation).Show how to exclude cases where all the information comes from taxonmy when trying to figure out wich way locomotion, migration, dispersal WENT to the particulars of the general distributions discussed earlier in theory bringing up Wright's notion of drift and the philosophy of biology if the students can handle it. One does not need to solve every techinical issue in writing computer programs for the testing of hypotheses.The key to teaching this is to use taxa where there are acutally different sets of characters that include all of a group and also that exclude a group of the same lineage.This actually USES more evolution than I did to come up with it.

Then you dont understand evolutionary theory. I am sorry to be this crass but I have tried time and time again to have it explained and all you keep doing is suggest something else.I had assumed that as this is Creatiion versus evolutin people who posted as often as you had some idea of the subject but I guess your physics background gives you more authority on the evolution of the universe than that of biological change by natural selection or not etc. Wolram's functionary on his new web site maintains some kind of similar ignorance, if I may use that word, but in his case he is speaking for a third party (wolfram (whose ideas are already in the public domain)) but you speak for yourself I thought. That's OK as I said before when I have real physics question I will ask you. The use of setting up a spin off of this thread (from my perspective) is only once one finds that by extending the example from any life to the physics and chemistry of THIS PARTICULAR living thing that one may question physical notions of space-time and or cybernitc priciples of clocks topologically and other things I guess you could rightly write you may or would not understand if I was to put a period on it, this list however is necessary if you are to do any good biology in my opninion. The studnets need to have someone who can uderstand this to start with. I NEVER said there was a difference of micro and macro evolution that was Goldschmidt who introduced that idea. The issue with that notion has to do with RATES of transformisms etc but by using the physics difference of speed vs acceleration this is not a material differnce in the teaching only a formal one. Sure one can split those hairs on a more advanced level but I dont think that is needed to be taught but perhaps in a gifted and talented class etc.If you are really posting to me like Randy and I went back and forth for a while I will choose not to talk to you. You have everything a entering freshman needs to read to understand. YOU did not repsond to my earlier link to ICR's two model approach so instead I gave you mine. It is not fair to get all of this and then simply hit a delete key etc. There is no purpose to this web site or any others like it then but I know I have gotten beyond this on others.

well now I now you guys are realy all a little more dense than I had give you all credit for. That still doesnt mean someone else will pop up since I last came back but I am really out of here Mike. YOU PEOPLE REALLY need a chat forum and not discussion formum Percy. I'm done good bye.

Reminders DO seem to be in order.NN said-

quote:

---

Once the tentative nature of it and what a theory is is explained I don't think you have to keep on reminding students of that.

---

WHILE Carl Zimmer in (note NO CAPITAL !"E"!) "evolution The Triumph Of An Idea" 2001 wrote WITH()IN!! "What about God?" "Paying the Price" "The result of these conflicts is not a new generation of creationists, but a generation of students who don't understand evolution. This is a bad state of affairs, and not simply because the theory of evolution stands as one of the greatest scientific acomplishments of the past 200 years. Many careers that students might want to pursue actually depend on a solid understanding of evolution." concluding the section without cost, "Biotechnology will keep speeding ahead, and it will keep relying on evolution as its central organizing principle. And it wont wait for people who didnt understand how life evolves because someone else decided they didn't need to."Carl apparently lied because he did not understand 'stewardship'. I know Carl and he knows me. Carl tried to assert causality where there is only a FINACIAL issue of funding of different kinds of graduate students. I overheard a conversation between two graduate students at Cornell on my way back home about THIS difference between a student in Ecology,Evolution and Systematics and Genetics and Development which indeed finds agreement with Carl's conclusion as to what speeds ahead no matter the amount of understanding on the students part as to evolution but this is not a RESULT of a "conflict" with creationists but only an ambiguous...I'll say later. Carl was Hunterdon Central's BEST ENGLSIH student and like Gould he apparently let the psychological reality overtake his pen. Actually Gould simply thinks things divided that biologists take on their plate instead. Carl simply tried to turn an observation into a perception but he missed the captial importance of the silence in the voice of the genetists OVER the tone of the naturalist who talks way too much.I am following the career of the Zero Atom Unit impulsion by impression instead of neglecting direct imposition for the bottom line. Matchette made it very clear that one needs to SEPERATE what is is from what created is....(look I only put in a DOT!!!!).