Evolution foes facing setback

San Antonio Express News ^ | 3/27/09 | Gary Scharrer

[laotzu]

You don't disprove a theory by proclaiming it is not science

No one is trying to disprove the theory of evolution, or silence it being taught in public schools.

What is your point?

[Oztrich Boy]

No theory is ever proven

How about Einstein's theory that gravity/mass bends light?

Light being bent in a gravity field is not a theory but an observable, measurable fact.

Einstein's theory on why it happens is the currently accepted explanation, and probably mostly true. That does not rule out a better explanation being found in the future.

[quantar]

No scientific is proven. Not the theory of gravity, not the theories of light (there are at least two of those), no theory is ever proven. Gravity can easily be observed locally, drop a baseball and it will fall downward in a predicted path at a predicted velocity but when the theory is used on a larger scale (think stellar) the theory gets very fuzzy. Is light a particle or pure energy? As far as science knows light cannot be both but different experiments can prove either conclusion. All scientific conclusions are approximate, not exact. I am a college math professor. Get ready for this. All math is based on theorems. Theorems are only ‘proved’ by using postulates which are mathematical assumptions on how mathematicians think numbers work. When beginning college math students realize that the ‘proof’ for all their previous math is fuzzy, it is usually a jaw dropping moment.

Paul

[laotzu]

Light being bent in a gravity field is not a theory but an observable, measurable fact.

Today, it is an observable, measurable fact.

At one time is was merely a theory of Einstein's.

[allmendream]

And before Einstein would you have said that Newton's theories had been “proven”?

What to do with relativity then, and the evidence that supports it, if Newtons theories of motion had already been “proven”?

It is obvious you have no knowledge of or respect for the methodology of science; but in science no theory is ever “proven”, just accepted provisionally awaiting contradictory data or refinement.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

“Then you support teaching the evil-spirit theory of disease, etc”

---

The premise of ‘Evolution’ essentially advocates a belief system whose foundation can be equated with Spontaneous Generation, merely in ultra-slow motion.

Considering the order of the galaxies and the uniqueness of our planet—and quest for peace of mind and nations—it takes more faith to believe in something-out-of-nothing than something-out-of-Someone.

And the issue of where the original ‘nothing’ or ‘Someone’ came from or how it/He/they pre-existed as the force, cause or raw materials is not in the realm of science. And one’s faith in one or the other of these world views, whether or not acknowledged as such, affect one’s subordinate premises, actions and future.

Once one chooses to deny the materialist impossibility of something-out-of-nothing, one can build and disseminate grand theories often at enormous (Department of Education) public expense and call it ‘science’ but it’s the religion of Atheism.

[sometime lurker]

But there are a great many people (scientist and non-scientist) who would like criticisms of evolution discussed at least somewhat in schools. To shut them out of the marketplace of ideas -- when they are a large and vocal group -- is to show signs of fear.

So we now decide what is science by popular vote? If we had a majority who didn't like dealing with that pesky pi, would we have to discuss criticisms of pi in math class? And they are not "shut out of the marketplace of ideas," all they have to do is come up with an alternate theory that is testable and falsifiable and that fits the known findings in the natural world.

As to "signs of fear," it is not fearful to refuse to refight old battles that are settled from a scientific point of view. It is merely efficient.

[ClearCase_guy]

Scientists have declared the debates over.
Scientists have declared themselves the winners.
Scientists want to have a monopoly in taxpayer-funded schools to teach children that scientists are always right and should not have to face criticism.

How nice for the scientists.

Meanwhile, there are millions of people screaming that the scientists have not made a compelling case. But we don't want to pay any attention them, do we? No, that would be "deciding what is science by popular vote". That would be bad ...

... for the scientists who have faith in evolution.

[sometime lurker]

Evolution is a foundation for many aspects of biology. In my own field, medicine, recognition of evolution of bacteria, viruses, and parasites means people looking for more effective antibiotics.

If one doesn’t recognize evolution, taxonomy classifications seem meaningless. One can go on and on, but evolution is considered one of the four or five foundations of biology. (Cell theory and genetics theory are two others.)

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

You're wrong on all counts.

Perhaps you should actually investigate what Intelligent Design is, instead of merely assuming it's young earth creationism by another name.

“Darwin's Black Box,” & “The Limits of Evolution” by Microbiologist Michael Behe would be a good place for you to start.

[Shadowfax]

Oh my goodness. Where to start? Well, let's just dive right in shall we.....

1) Schools are to teach the state of scientific thought. What present day scientists are thinking, and that's not Creationism. Politicians pandering to the voters by requiring the presentation of "alternative views" is the Fairness Doctrine

My family and the other homeschooling families that we know do teach the current state of scientific thought. We also don't censor the content. We teach that the vast number of secular scientists accept Darwinian Evolution without question. We also critically examine the challenges to Evolution.

By the by, with no exceptions, every homeschooled student I know is absolutely blowing away their public schooled peers in EVERY subject, including science. In my circle of homeschoolers, some of the kids have begun graduating and moving on to college. They are doing very well. In one case, the daughter of a friend is currently attending a major university on a full ride scholarship. (After considering all of the evidence, she's come to the conclusion that Evolution is a fairy tale. Didn't seem to stop the university from wanting her.)

Maybe the schools should consider taking their focus off of censorship of ideas that are critical of Evolution and putting it on academic excellence?

2) Not talking about political commentary? Haven't you heard Creationists declaring Darwinism is "liberal" and accepting it would turn them into amoral animals.

Yes, I've heard that and I more or less agree with it. But that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing the censorship of teaching that is critical of Evolution from our schools. That's not political commentary.

If you want to discuss the politics of Evolution, perhaps you should start a new thread.

3) It's not about making a scientific idea popular with the lumpen proletariat. Education there is to expose children to the current knowledge paradigm so that some of them will be inspired to learn and become scientists rather than lawyers

Ah, here we have the name calling. Excellent. Anyone who would dare criticise Evolution is one of the ignorant, unwashed masses. Brilliant.

See point #1. Homeschooling is currently the best educational option available in the United States based on results. In my experience, homeschoolers teach their kids the whole picture of Evolution, including the criticisms of the theory. The only thing that could stop these kids from going on to becoming absolutely brilliant scientists is the fear and prejudice of the current scientific community.

You know the ones, right? Mock and ridicule those who question Evolution. Censor ideas that they don't like. Betray their principles to question existing theory in exchange for defending the status quo at all costs.

[demshateGod]

You’re right. That’ was stupid comment. Evolutions should just be dropped altogether.

[allmendream]

Behe is a moron. His flagship of “irreducible complexity” is perfectly reducible as a type II secretory system. He is exactly what I mean when I say that the Incompetent Design movement is for those of weak faith, shoddy theology, and an attempt to both “prove” God, as well as to confine him to the “gaps” of our knowledge, and to posit that the design of creation is a rather shoddy affair that needs constant tinkering.

[sometime lurker]

I assume y'all never discussed the problems with Einstein's theory of relativity, nor talked about Nicolai Tesla's competing theories, nor the ..

Not in an introductory high school class, no.

Something you dogmatic Darwinists just don't get is ID is NOT antithetical to evolution; it merely states that Macro-evolution cannot happen by pure chance alone!!! It makes the proposition that some other, as yet undiscovered, natural law governs the process. (Yes, it also means that we have a CREATOR! Which is the main reason it is an anathema to the Darwinists.)

I'm not against learning about a Creator. I entirely approve of it - taking place in a church or synagogue or from one's parents. Or even in a comparative religion class. Not in a science class, which studies the natural, not the supernatural.

[MrB]

If one doesn’t recognize evolution, taxonomy classifications seem meaningless.

Nonsense. You can classify organisms just as easily under the assumptions that God created similarities between them.

And Creation theory doesn't reject the idea of change within species in response to environmental pressures, either, so there is no argument there.

Just what discovery wouldn't have been possible while observing biological processes with the mindset of "let's discover how God created this structure or system"?

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

“Behe is a moron.”

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were SO knowledgeable in the subject of microbiology!

BTW, it doesn't take a genius to see that the complexity of inner workings of a single cell ARE INDEED IRREDUCIBLE! It does however, take someone with at least average intelligence.

What's the matter, AMD, a cardinal support for your atheism being being shaken?

[sometime lurker]

And Creation theory doesn't reject the idea of change within species in response to environmental pressures, either, so there is no argument there.

Acutally, Creationists would have a little problem with ring species, wouldn't they?

[allmendream]

First off I am not an atheist. Only a zealot thinks that the world is divided into atheists who accept evolution and people of faith who reject evolution. I am a Christian.

I am knowledgeable about the subject of MOLECULAR biology, which is what Behe is talking about. MICRO biology deals with culturing microbial life forms.

Behe’s flagship flagella is perfectly reducible as a type II secretory system. It is not “irreducibly complex”.

Moreover the Incompetent Design movement is a pack of perjurers and “liars for the lord” that seek nothing less than the overthrow of the scientific method and a “theological” based science to replace it.

Moreover, among Behe’s idiotic assertions about the nature of the designer, and Behe’s view that the designer is rather incompetent; Behe also thinks that “astrology” is or was an accepted science, and that “God” as he conceives of the “designer” might be dead.

Behe also accepts the evidence for common descent of species.

Do you accept his premise of “irreducible complexity” but reject his simultaneous acceptance of common descent? How, when the actions of the designer to accomplish common descent are what his conjecture of “irreducible complexity”
is all about?

[ClearCase_guy]

In the examples of ring species I know of, salamanders turn into salamanders, and sea gulls turn into sea gulls. Creationists wouldn't have a problem with this.

One kind turning into another kind is another matter.

[sometime lurker]

Ring species are examples of speciation in progress, where one species may turn into two. Evolution, in other words.