Majority of Biology Teachers Hesitant About Evolution

Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | 03/10/2015

[PieterCasparzen]

So you believe in God, but the doctrine you stated contradicts the Bible.

Can you cite Bible verses which support your statement that the earth is billions of years old ?

[dr_lew]

Whatever additional factors may be added to natural selection—and Darwin himself fully admitted that there might be others—the theory of an evolution process in the formation of the universe and of animated nature is established, and the old theory of direct creation is gone forever. In place of it science has given us conceptions far more noble, and opened the way to an argument for design infinitely more beautiful than any ever developed by theology.

- Andrew Dickson White, HISTORY OF THE WARFARE OF SCIENCE WITH THEOLOGY IN CHRISTENDOM ( The link is to the Project Gutenberg version. )

This was written in 1894, and it still gives a thrill. I recommend it highly.

[boycott]

Maybe they really have been studying DNA and that two different “kinds” cannot mate and paid attention as to how evolution came to be accepted as “religion” in schools all across the country on fraudulent information and very shifty evidence that later turned out to be pig’s tooth...

---

You’ve got it.

Sooner or later, the evolutionists should be supporting all their claims. They always fall short.

[ifinnegan]

You have a good time talking to the straw men in your head.

You are mixed up as to who is doing the poor teaching. It is the university professors who teach the classes the education students, and other students with other majors, take. These same professors are often the evolutionary scientists doing current research. I do acknowledge that there are also schools where no research is done and subjects are taught by those not actively doing research.

Evolution is quite simple to understand, but it is made a convoluted subject, very hand wavy with pseudo-complexity grafted on to give it an aura of gravitas it doesn’t merit, and is often subjective which makes it hard to teach even at the highest level of a research institution and even more so at secondary level non-research universities.

That has nothing to do with it being “false” or airplanes being built due to tornados. You do seem to be obsessed with such inanities.

[ifinnegan]

No.

[dr_lew]

One might cite Psalm 90:4

For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

I think that kind of opens the door, don't you?

[freedumb2003]

>>Evolution is quite simple to understand, but it is made a convoluted subject, very hand wavy with pseudo-complexity grafted on to give it an aura of gravitas it doesn’t merit, and is often subjective which makes it hard to teach even at the highest level of a research institution and even more so at secondary level non-research universities.<<

I admit it — you lost me.

TToE is indeed quite simple to understand. The basics are there for anyone to understand.

There is a teaching problem, but I suspect the subject matter (TToE, the USC or so many other subjects) is not the problem.

Teachers just don’t know how to TEACH and the students, who have spent their lives getting medals for having “tried” just don’t know how to LEARN.

This isn’t TToE at all and I think you and I are arguing about something we agree upon based on specifics rather than the principles we see the same way.

Of all the gifts God gave us, His Children, the ability to teach was the greatest (seriously — Christ enumerated them). My mom had it — I kind of have it but my foolish passion inhibits my ability to use it some times (this being one of those times).

[freedumb2003]

>>Sooner or later, the evolutionists should be supporting all their claims. They always fall short.<<

Flies in NY from the same species went into the subways — after some generations the outside flies could not mate with the subterranean flies.

There is no scientific concept as “kind” — but stochastic speciation has happened before our very eyes.

[dayglored]

> So you believe in God,

Yes.

> but the doctrine you stated contradicts the Bible. Can you cite Bible verses which support your statement “I believe that Evolution is the action of God’s mighty hand, continually creating and re-creating the range and diversity of living things.”

That wasn’t doctrine, just a statement of my personal belief about the role evolution plays in God’s Creation. The Bible was written a few thousand years ago, long before the evidence of evolution as a tool of God was revealed to Man. God reveals things and gives us opportunities to expand our knowledge over time. So I believe that the Bible is the word of God revealed to Man, but the beginning of that process, not its entirety. I anticipate that we may disagree on that point, and I wish no quarrel, I’m only offering my answer to your question.

I cannot cite verse from The Bible to underscore my belief, as it is a personal revelation, thousands of years after the Bible was written. Nevertheless, I am convinced in my belief that the Author of the Universe, the Creator of all things, is entirely capable of creating natural processes such as evolution to allow His Creation to advance toward its fulfillment. No, I don’t know what that fulfillment is, except in general terms. :)

[jsanders2001]

>>Maybe they really have been studying DNA and that two different “kinds” cannot mate and paid attention as to how evolution came to be accepted as “religion” in schools all across the country on fraudulent information and very shifty evidence that later turned out to be pig’s tooth...<<

Since “kind” is not a scientific concept, the rest of your statement is pretty meaningless.

Well you better go tell all the scientists thare using the term, “change in kind” that they are wrong. It may take you a few years though. Then you can come back and tell me their statements were meaningless...: )

[jsanders2001]

>>Maybe they really have been studying DNA and that two different “kinds” cannot mate and paid attention as to how evolution came to be accepted as “religion” in schools all across the country on fraudulent information and very shifty evidence that later turned out to be pig’s tooth...<<

Since “kind” is not a scientific concept, the rest of your statement is pretty meaningless.

Well you better go tell all the scientists that are using the term, “change in kind” that they are wrong. It may take you a few years though. Then you can come back and tell me their statements were meaningless...: )

[freedumb2003]

>>Well you better go tell all the scientists thare using the term, “change in kind” that they are wrong. It may take you a few years though. Then you can come back and tell me their statements were meaningless...: )<<

I have never seen that term in a single scientific journal, and I have ready plenty especially having to do with TToE and Earth Sciences. I am going to need a link to see the context.

[boycott]

We need to be teaching real science like this ......... :>)

[freedumb2003]

The Bible tells us of our relationship with God and His Son, Jesus.

It is not a scientific text.

The Bible does not define Gravity (nor tells us from whence it comes which is less known than TToE), defines the Speed of Light, Avogadro’s Constant onr how to eek light out of excited molecules, much less Boolean logic as an applicable discipline.

God speaks to use through the Bible and the biggest statement is: “I gave you a rational Universe with rational laws: discover them and you will see Me with each discovery.”

[ifinnegan]

Your assertions I am not sure are borne out.

If your assertions are correct there would be a corresponding difficulty across the disciplines.

But there does not seem to be the same problem with chemistry, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, physiology, physics etc...

Why is evolution the exception?

[ifinnegan]

My observations are

Evolution is simple to understand, but it is sparse.

It barely merits a section in a biology class to explain.

It is puffed out with a lot of hand waving and what can be called scientific histrionics to make a full class, much less a major.

[freedumb2003]

>>If your assertions are correct there would be a corresponding difficulty across the disciplines.

But there does not seem to be the same problem with chemistry, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, physiology, physics etc...

Why is evolution the exception?<<

Because it may not be the sole exception and it is the only scientific discipline attacked by religious zealots who introduce foolish notions such as “intelligent design.”

My analogy still holds. Why is American History and the USC so difficult to teach and understand?

Might it be people with another agenda have poisoned the waters?

And why geology gets a pass is beyond me — if the Earth is only 6,000 years old, Continental Drift is a huge problem.

But the inability to teach and understand something (which has been understood by grade school kids for 50+ years) means nothing to the actual theory.

[OneWingedShark]

*sigh*
Now I have to explain the joke.

Mitosis — Mitosis is a part of the cell cycle process by which chromosomes in a cell nucleus are separated into two identical sets of chromosomes, each in its own nucleus.

Clone — Cloning in biotechnology refers to processes used to create copies of DNA fragments, cells, or organisms.

Therefore mitosis is a form of cloning; albeit a natural process.

[freedumb2003]

>>Evolution is simple to understand, but it is sparse.

It barely merits a section in a biology class to explain.

It is puffed out with a lot of hand waving and what can be called scientific histrionics to make a full class, much less a major.
<<

Thank God you are not in immunology or medical diagnostics.

[dayglored]

> God speaks to us through the Bible and the biggest statement is: “I gave you a rational Universe with rational laws: discover them and you will see Me with each discovery.”

I like that, it aligns well with my own experience in physics, philosophy, engineering, and my efforts to understand the nature of God and the Universe. Thanks!