Biology teacher resource help

quote:

---

My problem is that I don't know were to look for good unbiased scientific data.

---

How about a decent freshman-level college Biology text?

quote:

---

In addition, has anyone found any creationist arguments that make sense.

---

Sadly, no.They either cherry-pick supportive evidence and ignore any evidence that is inconvenient, or they simply present false information.Remember, Creationists are not interested in doing science. They are not interested in testing their own hypothese or trying to learn anything.What they are interested in is preserving their creation beliefs, and any sort of real scientific inquiry is anathema to that if their beliefs contradict the reality of nature.I wish you luck.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I've specifically been interested in what genetics has to say about evolution. I get the feeling, others can elaborate on this issue as well.

---

Before DNA was discovered, there had been in use morphological trees of life that Biologists had constructed. Then, genetic trees of life were constructed by the geneticists. It turns out that the two trees were remarkably congruous, even though entirely different data in two different fields were used to make them.Because of this, Genetics is the field that sealed the deal on the acceptance in the scientific community for evolution as the best and most complete explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, really, and the addition of the genetic piece to all the other evidence is referred to, in the aggregate, as The Modern Synthesis.

quote:

---

You and I have a VERY different opinion on the quality and validity of TalkOrigin material. I see it as basically propaganda and think my comments or anyone is on a par with it.....it's not exactly peer-review material, is it?

---

TalkOrigins articles heavily reference peer-reviewed scientific literature, as any perusal of the reference list and footnotes at the end of any article shows.In addition, there are links to rebuttals by creationists, and links to the authors' responses to rebuttals.So, there's lots of openness about sources and lots of openness with linking to criticisms of the articles.Last time I checked, propaganda doesn't usually include anything like sources, references, or links to opposing viewpoints.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Evolution is not a sound theory. It is Atheist ideology packaged as science.

---

Are you saying that the Pope is an Atheist?

quote:

---

I feel like I get the run around when I try to research this topic.

---

Do you feel like you've been given the runaround by the scientists on this site?

quote:

---

What I really mean is that most of the textbooks I have read only give a little info that is treated like fact. I just want to see how they came to that conclusion.

---

Well, would you think that a History or Physics textbook was "giving you the runaround" because it didn't include all of the relevant historical source material or original research papers?Are you saying that Biology textbooks do this sort of thing more than other subjects, or do you just tend to be more suspicious of the content of Biology books, compared to other subjects?Please don't think I'm tryng to play a game of "gotcha" or something. I just thought it was odd that someone would think that Biology textbooks, in particular, were trying to pull a fast one or something, when most other subjects' tectbooks treat information in pretty much the same way when there's an enorrmous amount of material to cover and limited time to cover it.

quote:

---

No, really thanks for pointing this out. I am biased. Of course my environment has made me more suspicious, but this is why I have asked this question. Thanks though for pointing this out.

---

Well, I think it is very good that you realize your bias.Unless you think Biologists (and really all scientists) are either engaged in a massive conspiracy to hide the truth from us, or have all been, to a person, a bunch of scientists so incompetent at doing science that they've never realized, in 150 years, that the foundational theory of all the life sciences is fundamentally flawed, then you simply must accept that the scientific method is the same no matter what branch of science is using it.I mean, come on.