Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Teaching the Truth in Schools
Spofforth
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 169 (32455)
02-17-2003 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by reefmonkey
02-11-2003 4:47 PM


______________________________________________________________________
Quote:
"Man evolved from monkeys" - that old tired straw man that creationists use to raise emotional hackles of people who haven't otherwise gotten evolved in the debate. Nowhere in evolutionary theory is it advanced that man evolved from monkeys. Both simians and hominids arose by descent with modification from a common ancestor.
______________________________________________________________________
Were you there, can you present the actual evidence that there was a common ancestor? Can you even present writings from the earliest individual that descended from this common ancestor? Can you present molecular evidence that evolution even does occur on a macro level? Have you ever seen a new feature develop in an "advanced" creature that you would consider an evolutionary feature?
My guess would be that you would most likely answer no to any of these questions. However, you would have the theory that arises from these questions taught without rebuttal in every classroom. What is with all of the PC liberal ranting that goes on now? Just because an intelligent design theory implies a creator it does not need to be a specific creator. That choice is left to free will, something evolutionsts seem to be afraid of in the classroom. If free will and choice were introduced into the classroom students would have the choice not to believe a "theory" that has many flaws. Wouldn't it truly be a shame if a student was to actually disagree and do a little research on both sides of the issue and actually develop their own opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by reefmonkey, posted 02-11-2003 4:47 PM reefmonkey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 02-17-2003 2:46 PM Spofforth has replied
 Message 34 by Coragyps, posted 02-17-2003 3:34 PM Spofforth has replied

  
Spofforth
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 169 (32513)
02-17-2003 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by nator
02-17-2003 2:46 PM


I am truly sorry. I am new and do appreciate that the line has most likely been done to death. The point that I am trying to get across is that in schools, not only with evolution but with most every subject, the student is subjected to the view of the teacher with no room for debate. Most of what is taught is mandated by a school board or state board that has no idea what is actually going on in the school or the classroom as well as having no knowledge base for the information they are mandating. I believe that it would be nice for the student to be able to broaden his/her knowledge base by being presented information on both sides of a topic. With the topic of evolution this would not necesarrily teach a creationist viewpoint, but that there are alternate theories such as intelligent design. Not that the student should believe either theory because a teacher stands in front of them and tells them it is true, they should determine what they believe from a well rounded base of knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 02-17-2003 2:46 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by nator, posted 02-20-2003 9:55 PM Spofforth has replied

  
Spofforth
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 169 (32515)
02-17-2003 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Coragyps
02-17-2003 3:34 PM


Thank you for the welcome and I will watch my posts a little more closely. Been dumbed down over the last few years and need to gain a little more edge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Coragyps, posted 02-17-2003 3:34 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Spofforth
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 169 (32846)
02-21-2003 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by nator
02-20-2003 9:55 PM


______________________________________________________________________
...except that ID is really just creationism.
______________________________________________________________________
Yes, however it does not have to be taught in a religious context. In a classroom setting you would neither have to imply that God nor a religious icon of any sort was the creator. Most students are going to enter the classroom with their preconceived notions regardless of what the curriculum for a particular class. The problem with those preconceptions is that they often lead to the student shutting down when alternate theories, including evolution and the formation of life, are discussed.
______________________________________________________________________
It is merely the latest "God of the Gaps" rework. IOW, ID states that because we don't understand how some system could have evolved naturally, some non-natural "Intelligent Designer" (God) had to have done it.
The question I have always asked of every ID proponent I have ever come across is:
How do we tell the difference between an ID system and a natural one which we
1) don't understand yet, or
2) don't have the intelligence to ever understand?
I've never had anyone in the ID camp give me any answer at all.
______________________________________________________________________
The problem with students is if you describe a scientific theory and they see the gaps or evidence they don't understand, they just shut down. They no longer discuss the topic, they tend to become very defensive. There seems to be a more positive response if you do not discount their religion and present the evidence for evolution at the same time. With presenting alternate theories, like intelligent design, the student might tend to be more at ease with the subject. Even today this is a very touchy subject in the classroom, but there are very few students that are willing to even discuss evolution if you discount their beliefs as not being possible. If they are atleast given a theory that could include their religious beliefs they seem to be more at ease with the whole topic. I really believe that ID can be presented without religious implications if you discuss the vastness of the universe and the possibility of other intelligent forms of life that may be more advanced than humans and could be involved in the design of life. If we never do understand completely the mechanism for life, I hope that the students in the classroom will at least be able to look at scientific evidence rationally and be able to discuss it.
______________________________________________________________________
You seem to be advocating the teaching of other ideas alongside the Modern Synthesis as equally valid, regardless of how little the evidence supports it.
What I would suggest for all students is a mandatory critical thinking/logic/skeptical inquiry course.
______________________________________________________________________
I believe the way ideas should be taught is by discussing the fact that evidence at this point in time leads us to believe in a mechanism for life such as modern synthesis. However, I do believe that there should be a discussion of the fact that scientific theories are not static, but change with each technological advance that is made. It would be great if every student were required to think critically about what was going on in the world around them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by nator, posted 02-20-2003 9:55 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Percy, posted 02-21-2003 11:38 PM Spofforth has replied
 Message 41 by nator, posted 02-22-2003 9:34 AM Spofforth has replied

  
Spofforth
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 169 (32851)
02-22-2003 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Percy
02-21-2003 11:38 PM



You can put the HTML horizontal rule in your message text and it will do the same thing as a line of underscores, but much more efficiently. For example, the first couple lines of your message could have been done like this:
Thanks, you are right it is much easier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Percy, posted 02-21-2003 11:38 PM Percy has not replied

  
Spofforth
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 169 (32947)
02-23-2003 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by nator
02-22-2003 9:34 AM



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a classroom setting you would neither have to imply that God nor a religious icon of any sort was the creator.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But this is the logical conclusion of the ID argument; "God of the Gaps." If you want to talk about it in a comparative religion or philosophy course, fine, but not in a science class. Only that which is scientific should be taught in science class. This seems very obvious to me.
This is only the logical conclusion of ID if it is being taught in a religious context. There are many possible explanations that could be used in a nonreligious context (Superior alien intelligence, time travel, etc.). I am not stating that any of these concepts are more valid, just that they can lead to discussion and student interest in a classroom setting. The apathy of students today is something that desparately needs to be overcome and a controversial issue with many possible explanations might be the way to get a few more students involved in the science classroom.

Why should non-science be taught as science?
If a student is racist, should Halocaust revisionist history be taught as alternate valid history just so he can be "more at ease" with the subject?
Similarly, just because someone's religious views requires them to disbelieve valid scientific knowledge does not mean that we aught to dumb down the science or mislead students into thinking that non-science or poor science is just as valid as real science.
I have trouble seeing that evidence discounts any possible explanation of how life came to be at this point. While there is evidence that modern synthesis is a possible explanation of how life came to be in its present form the gaps in the theory, ie low likelihood that an organism with a mutation would even survive to reproduce, leave the door open for other theories at this time. It is hard to justify, without a clear lineage from a primative cell to the present diversity of complex life without gap, teaching only one theory. I know there are similarities in DNA and amino acid patterns, but this doesn't discount the fact that a designer would be working from an original template and would not recreate life with every step. This is not to say that either concept is more correct than the other, just that the student should be presented with more than one idea.

To follow your logic, we should have a world religion creation myth discussion in the science classroom instead of discussing science. What if there are Muslims, Native Americans, Hindus, Young Earth Christians, Old Earth Christians, Buddhists, and Shinto kids in this science class. How are you going to teach any science if you are spending your time discussing all of their various religious views so they all feel "at ease"?
I do not believe that any form of religion should be discussed in the classroom. However, I do believe that alternate theories as to the beginning of life should be discussed. ID, Punctuated equilibrium, Darwinian evolution, Modern synthesis, neo-Darwinian theory are a few that could be discussed. The problem is that the whole discussion on the topic occurs in a relatively small time frame and most science classes are barely able to scratch the surface of any theory let alone allow a debate of alternate theories. If the student is very schooled in the scientific method and at least is presented some of the alternating theories they should logically be able to make their own conclusions and study the possibilities on their own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by nator, posted 02-22-2003 9:34 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by John, posted 02-23-2003 4:45 PM Spofforth has replied

  
Spofforth
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 169 (32983)
02-23-2003 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by John
02-23-2003 4:45 PM



[quote]Low likelihood? Not by a lot. It happens all the time. Virtually every critter born has a mutation, and a significant number survive to reproduce.
I beg to differ with this point, most organisms are born with a variation that is preexisting within their genome. This leads to the variety we see in living things. Most mutations, such as insertions, deletions, or translocations lead to a frameshift in the genetic code. When there is a frame shift in the genetic code very seldon is the organism going to survive embryo development let alone reach reproductive age. Point mutations are more prevalent, but do not tend to lead to large differences (large enough for the formation of new traits) and often times do not even change the amino acid sequence of the proteins within the organism. This is where I find it difficult to teach evolution as such as fact.
[This message has been edited by Spofforth, 02-23-2003]
[This message has been edited by Spofforth, 02-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by John, posted 02-23-2003 4:45 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by John, posted 02-23-2003 10:18 PM Spofforth has replied

  
Spofforth
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 169 (33018)
02-24-2003 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by John
02-23-2003 10:18 PM



Although rarely fatal by themselves, Most of these mutations reduce the probability of surviving or producing offspring, Eyre-Walker says.
http://abcnews.go.com/...ience/DailyNews/mutation990127.html

Many copy errors are still not going to lead to new amino acids, let alone new proteins. The vast majority of organisms that do survive the embryo development with a mutation are weakened in the grand picture. They are producing something that is unnecessary or unuseable, at which point they are using valuable resources and weakening their position within the species. They are weeded out. Even if they do develop a component that we would see as useful, the odds of it developing with proper timing or function are negligible. I still do not find mutation effective in terms of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by John, posted 02-23-2003 10:18 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by John, posted 02-24-2003 11:09 AM Spofforth has replied

  
Spofforth
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 169 (33074)
02-24-2003 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by John
02-24-2003 11:09 AM



How did you calculate these odds? Did you consider that there are hundreds of billions of organisms which have been reproducing for several billion years-- and for most of that time reproducing several times a day, being bacteria-- and introducing copy errors at every turn? In short, it happens.
In what population of organisms, except bacteria which I am guessing that you are not making the assumption that they can evolve immediate multicellular and complex capabilities, are there hundreds of billions of organisms? If evolution can only happen at the population level, there still is not the grand scale number of organisms necessary fro mutation to be the driving factor. Since this is what is being taught in the science classroom today this is the contradiction. Maybe the whole topic should not be taught in a science classroom at all, but in a philosophy of science class? Only the students that have demonstrated an understanding of biological systems and the scientific method should be allowed to investigate further. Those would be the students that would understand the issues and put in the time in any event.

Who said anything about a new amino acid or protein? A slight modification of existing structures is perfectly adequate for producing significant change in the organism. This has been shown repeatedly.
What do you think a modification in the genetic code is doing? It is coding for a new amino acid which is coding in turn for a new protein. If the protein happens to fit with the other proteins that are present in the organism that organism might survive the mutation. Although the mutation is present it may not even get the chance to thrive in an environment and the organism may never pass it on to the next generation. If we do not know the origination of the original genetic code we cannot teach that all organisms originated from the same lineage despite the fact that some evidence might point in that direction.
If you want to be truly neutral in the science classroom no theories can be taught, just the scientific fundamentals that would allow the student to investigate further on his/her own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by John, posted 02-24-2003 11:09 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by John, posted 02-25-2003 4:12 PM Spofforth has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024