Creationism In Arkansas Schools?
Posted by
Kevin
This is disturbing:
About a fifth of Arkansas teachers teach straight evolution, while another 30 percent teach “something along those lines,” according to a survey by state education officials. The other 50 percent don’t teach it, either because of their own weaknesses or community opposition. About 10 percent teach straight creationism.
Emphasis mine. 10% of Arkansas teachers teach straight creationism. If this is science teachers (and I have emailed the reporter for clarification), then 10% of science teachers are deliberately teaching something that is not supported by even so much as an ounce of scientific evidence. they are betraying their professional responsibilities and imposing the religious beliefs of some parts of the community upon their students, either out of personal moral failing or becasue they are afraid for their jobs.
And fear for their jobs was very real:
As governor, Huckabee funded a creationist museum and loudly endorsed the teaching of “creation science.” While his political allies in the state legislature twice introduced bills to ban the teaching of evolution, Huckabee presided over a school system that earned a “D” in science education and an “F” in teaching evolution. Only about a fifth of the science teachers in Arkansas taught evolution, though it was part of the school science education guidelines.
… But Huckabee’s obvious sympathies, and the intransigence of Fundamentalist school board officials, led Arkansas science educators to self-censor. Administrators cautioned science educators against using the “e-word” in their encounters with schools and students. At the Arkansas Museum of Discovery, the traditional state science museum, for example, museum officials removed an evolution exhibit amid a whispering campaign about the ire of conservative powers.
… Plenty of Arkansas politicians endorse creationism. In 2001, conservative state Rep. Jim Holt introduced a bill that banned the imparting of “fraudulent or false information”—specifically, the age of the earth or the origins of life—in Arkansas schools, museums or other state-funded programs. It died in committee, but a few years later, Mark Martin introduced another bill, which was squashed for procedural reasons. Huckabee isn’t on record about either bill. Nor did he comment on the ruckus over the anti-evolution stickers that the Beebe, Arkansas School Board removed from its science textbook in 2005 under threat of a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union.
When people talk about doing away with tenure or making it easier to fire teachers without proving cause, remember that they are also, intentionally or not, arguing for allowing school administrators to fire teachers who stand up for science and against religious indoctrination in our schools.
And, no, teaching evolution is not imposing religious beliefs. Evolution has nothing to do with religion. It is a scientific pursuit and it is taught becasue it is what the overwhelming scientific evidence supports. Claiming that evolution is imposing religious beliefs is either the result of not understanding what the words “religion” or “science” mean or a deliberate lie.
Trust me, I get the whole issue, and I agree that evolution should be taught as science.
What I don’t understand as well is why outrage over “inaccurate” science is unique in its fervor and magnitude.
I would argue that it is the greater sin, in terms of the intellectual and social development of students, the inaccuracy, self-censorship, political motives, that define how we teach HISTORY.
I’m not trying to hi-jack the discussion, or turn this into a question of which is “worse.” But, I find it a little odd.
Comment 1/29/2008
Digg
Good point, actually. But the science thing drags up two issues that history doesn’t: fear of religious imposition and fear of the future. People don;t want their kids being forced to regurgitate minority protestant Christian views in science class, and people want their kids to have the best possible future, and that means understanding the brave new technologies that seem to appear at a more rapid past than the past.
Plus, its clearer. There is room to debate interpretation and what is and is not important in a survey class; there isn’t a hard and fast right or wrong outside of deliberately lying about historical facts. With science, creationism is just flatly unscientific, and thats clear to everyone who looks at the issue honestly. Its easier to understand the science debate than the history debate.
Comment 1/29/2008
“Evolution has nothing to do with religion.”
It has to do with faith.
Comment 1/29/2008
Creationism being taught AS science is indefensible. Creationism taught under a rubric of science is far worse than simply espousing religious rhetoric. Just to make an analogy, and NOT to bring morality into this, it is kinda like the distinction between immoral and amoral.
And, I agree that history is open to more interpretations, but that is also the precise reasons why students should be exposed to more of them. The opportunity to interpret history for oneself is the type of educational opportunity is rare, and should be taken advantage of. And, inclusion is only one facet of situation, hero-ification, and Eurocentricity pervade history, regardless of what topics are chosen to be included in the curriculum.
Further, I would suggest if parents are concerned about students regurgitating minority religious views in science class, then so too should they worry about their children regurgitating minority, religiously-influenced, interpretations of history. And, not be trite, but students are immediately behind the eight ball when it comes to understanding technologies, etc. of the future if they are unable to understand the ramifications of similar revolutions of the past.
The two discussions aren’t so much of a comparison, but two sides of the same coin. It’s the same sensibilities that strive to portray human existence as a religious phenomenon that desire to interpret and teach history as a morality play. After all, the undertones imply that God is on our side…
Comment 1/29/2008
I would say the study of evolution involves the use of assumption - as is the case with most scientific theories, and I suppose I see how this could be mistaken by a scientifically ignorant person for faith.
The open-minded will reach a more informed understanding on the subject after (in the micro–universe of this blog) reading related comments by KTK, LarryE, and others. The close-minded will continue to parrot their ignorance, perhaps in an attempt to resist the evolution of their own understanding of life.
Comment 1/29/2008
“I would say the study of evolution involves the use of assumption - as is the case with most scientific theories”
And we know how some of those “scientific assumptions” have turned out — flat earth, sun revolves around earth, bloodletting, etc, etc, etc, etc, and so on. If you want a good laugh, read any 100 year old science book or medical journal with its “scientific assumptions.”
Comment 1/29/2008
Ted:
reading related comments by KTK, LarryE, and others
I’m relegated to “others.”
*sniff*
And we know how some of those “scientific assumptions” have turned out — flat earth, sun revolves around earth, bloodletting
And why did these “assumptions” get abandoned? Because they were proven wrong, and because evidence simply didn’t support them. And guess what religious folks did when science abandoned those! Why, they did the same thing there that they’re trying to do with evolution. Ask Copernicus and Galileo what they think about religious alternatives to scientific theories…
Comment 1/29/2008
tgirsch, i found the comments of ktk and larrye to be particularly compelling.
as for morris’s last comment - that’s what we call hoist by one’s own petard.
Comment 1/29/2008
Ted:
I know, I’m just razzing you.
Comment 1/29/2008
Morris,
Can you site even one person who ever claimed that the theory of a flat earth was a scientific belief? Did anyone accept their claim at the time that they made it?
Comment 1/29/2008
And why did these “assumptions” get abandoned? Because they were proven wrong, and because evidence simply didn’t support them.”
Yet these “assumptions” were taught as fact.
Comment 1/30/2008
TG,
Better than being (de facto) relegated to the closed-minded group…
Comment 1/30/2008
Morris/Fred wrote; “Yet these “assumptions” were taught as fact.”
Taught and promoted by the religious authorities, who felt that heliocentrism was contrary to their interpretation of Scripture. Their faith was inviolable, no need for verification by the scientific method and their interpretation sacrosanct. That should be instructive.
Comment 1/30/2008
the fact that the ancients lacked a robust sientific method is no reflection on science today. and your repeated mention of earth/sun is comical. that the earth was the center of the universe was reigious dogma, not scientific theory.
Comment 1/30/2008
“earth was the center of the universe was reigious dogma, not scientific theory.”
Yeah, right. All the scientists of ancient days believed that the earth rotated around the sun. Yeah, right. LOL
BTW, perhaps you could tell me where the Bible says the universe revolves around the earth.
Comment 1/30/2008
“Taught and promoted by the religious authorities,”
Have you lost your mind? First your side says that assumptions are made by science based on evidence and then you say those assumptions were taught and promoted by the religious authorities. That certainly makes no sense. It’s hard to tell which side you are arguing for.
Comment 1/30/2008
Morris/Fred wrote: “First your side says that assumptions are made by science based on evidence and then you say those assumptions were taught and promoted by the religious authorities.”
I’m not sure where this statement is coming from. The geocentric view of the universe was never confirmed by the scientific method, it was a view that continued to be propagated by the Church. It was the religious authorities who resisted the scientific ie. the heliocentric view. The Church felt their faith was sufficient promote the geocentric view as truth, and they felt it was confirmed by their interpretation of Scripture. They used their faith, and their interpretation of Scripture to suppress fact.
“That certainly makes no sense.”
It makes perfect sense.
“Have you lost your mind?”
Given that I’m even attempting to reason with you? Probably.
Comment 1/30/2008
janusz, doesn’t this remind you of grammar school? if only fred had availed himself of higher education - at least we could debate based on the merits…
Comment 1/30/2008
Ted:
It seems to me that even grammar school kids argue on a higher level than this. If Fred had paid attention in grammar school, he would have understood the conflict between Galileo and the Church. I have to say, his postings on this thread were truly bizarre…even for him.
Comment 1/30/2008
true
Comment 1/30/2008
Interesting how you regard Aristotle and Ptolemy as people who spread religious dogma since they were two of the key people to develop the ideas regarding the idea the earth was the centre of the universe.
In or about 1616 the Catholic church took a hard line against heliocentrism based very strongly on their assumption that Ptolemy was right in his views. By the late 1700’s the church removed any bans on heliocentric books.
So, science and philosophers pushed geocentrism for centuries as fact but it was the church’s idea? Give me a break.
Comment 1/31/2008
“I’m not sure where this statement is coming from.”
You need to go back a read the posts.
Jan.. says, “I would say the study of evolution involves the use of assumption - as is the case with most scientific theories,”
I said these “assumptions” mentioned by Janusz were taught in school as “facts.” You then say the “assumptions” were “Taught and promoted by the religious authorities,” I didn’t realize you think that scientific “assumptions” were taught by anti-science religious authorities.
Comment 1/31/2008
“They used their faith, and their interpretation of Scripture to suppress fact.”
But do you have a scripture that says the sun revolves around the earth? Don’t give me this garbage about some Catholic interpretation. I problably hold the Catholic Church in as little regard as you do.
Comment 1/31/2008
Actually Ted made the statement in comment 5 “I would say the study of evolution involves the use of assumption - as is the case with most scientific theories,”
Comment 1/31/2008
Big U wrote: “Interesting how you regard Aristotle and Ptolemy as people who spread religious dogma since they were two of the key people to develop the ideas regarding the idea the earth was the centre of the universe.”
You’ll note that I never said that the Church developed the geocentric view, I stated “it was a view that continued to be propagated by the Church.” The Church felt this view was supported by Scripture, man being in God’s image, it made sense that the universe revolved around man, both literally and figuratively. The Church was so convinced of Biblical justification for geocentrism that she refused to acknowledge any empirical support for an opposing view.
I was merely pointing out the danger of relying on faith and one’s interpretation of Scripture at the expense of empirical data.
Comment 1/31/2008
big u, science was debating the issue for centuries; there were as many heliocentrics as geocentrics. This is as it should have been since the tools required to prove or disprove either theory did not yet exist.
The Church removed the final ban in 1822 - so for some 300 years, as the science was finally maturing, the Church imposed religious dogma over science.
Comment 1/31/2008
“The Church removed the final ban in 1822 - so for some 300 years, as the science was finally maturing, the Church imposed religious dogma over science.”
Which church?
Comment 1/31/2008
Janusz > your comment in #13 would lead one to believe that the church was the only promoter of the earth-centric idea. While that was true in the 1600’s and 1700’s, for over 1000 years prior, the idea was taught as fact by the scientific community. Did the church screw up? Yes. But the scientific community screwed up for much longer.
Also, in #14, Ted clearly stated that the earth as the centre of the universe was religious dogma and not scientific theory. That was completely wrong.
Comment 1/31/2008
Ted > in regards to your comment that there were as many heliocentrics as geocentrics for centuries is just not true. Aristotle came up with the geocentric model which was widely supported and strongly defended in the scientific community. When Copernicus produced his heliocentric findings in the 1500’s he didn’t push the idea because he was concerned about backlash and condemnation from the scientific community. He was a Catholic priest and actually had the church’s blessing to do what he was doing. It was the scientific community which he was afraid of offending. Seems strikingly familiar to today where any scientist who goes against the global warming dogma is ridiculed and mocked.
Comment 1/31/2008
Big U wrote: “Did the church screw up? Yes. But the scientific community screwed up for much longer.”
I would hesitate to call Aristotle and Ptolemy’s geocentrism science as it did not (perhaps could not, given the time) conform to scientific testing. But even given that it was the prevailing wisdom at the time, science allows for revision as new empirical data become available. Faith, by definition, often does not. And the repercussions can be quite severe. What is notable is how resistant the Church was to Galileo’s “theories”, how the Church would not consider empirical evidence felt to contradict Biblical authority.
Morris/Fred wrote: “But do you have a scripture that says the sun revolves around the earth? Don’t give me this garbage about some Catholic interpretation. I problably hold the Catholic Church in as little regard as you do.
Chronicles 16:30 “the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved”
Psalm 104:5 “…set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.”
I guess it’s all in how you interpret the passages. The prevailing authorities in Galileo’s time felt it was enough to imprison someone for heretical views. That in itself should give one pause.
Comment 1/31/2008
Morris wrote: “Don’t give me this garbage about some Catholic interpretation. I problably hold the Catholic Church in as little regard as you do.”
Oh, and Fred, please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said, or implied the above. But feel free to make your own biases clear.
Comment 1/31/2008
Janusz > the Catholic Church did not have a problem with Capernicus for 70 years before Galileo came along so it was not an issue with being unwilling to bend. The issue was when Galileo decided to use scripture to back up his heliocentric theories (thus attacking the political side of the Catholic church and bringing into question the infallibility of the pope) that the Catholic church issued its ban.
Please keep in mind the fact that during that time, the Catholic church was the final legal authority on most matters political in several places.
It was, in fact, the scientists that turned to scripture to refute Galileo and Galileo using scripture to refute other scientists that drew the church into making a statement.
Comment 1/31/2008
Big U:
In the time of Aristotle, there was no such thing as “the scientific community” in anything like how we currently understand the term. The scientific method wasn’t pioneered until some time around the year 1000CE, or more than 1,300 years after Aristotle became worm food. And it didn’t come into anything like common use until the scientific revolution, in the late 16th century.
And while it’s true that Copernicus was initially reluctant to publish his work on heliocentrism, it’s not clear what kind of criticism he feared. It seems likely he feared both philosophical and religious backlash. But again, recall that Copernicus is viewed to be the catalyst for the scientific revolution; you didn’t have a requirement to subject your views to rigorous testing and peer review quite like the modern scientific method requires.
But setting all that aside, the key flaw with Morris/Fred’s “logic” is that it presumes since what was the prevailing knowledge has in the past been wrong, we must behave as though the current prevailing knowledge is at least as likely to be wrong, and that simply doesn’t follow.
If science is to be useful, and to mean anything, we need to teach whatever the evidence suggests — the best available empirical explanation for the evidence as we currently understand it. The idea that “we could be wrong” is (or at least should be) inherent in all of science; and, in fact, science goes to great length to quantify the likelihood that it is wrong.
Comment 1/31/2008
Big U:
the Catholic Church did not have a problem with Capernicus for 70 years before Galileo came along so it was not an issue with being unwilling to bend. The issue was when Galileo decided to use scripture to back up his heliocentric theories
That’s not at all consistent with my understanding of the history surrounding this. Perhaps you can provide some citations to support this?
Comment 1/31/2008
Big U wrote: “…the Catholic Church did not have a problem with Capernicus for 70 years before Galileo came along so it was not an issue with being unwilling to bend.”
The Catholic Church was silent when Copernicus first published. Don’t mistake this for approval, or even tolerance. Martin Luther was quite clear regarding his objections to the heliocentric view.
The statement that the “scientists” of the day used Scripture to refute Galileo only supports my suggestion that it is very dangerous to use faith at the expense of empirical data.
Comment 1/31/2008
tgirsch > perhaps I was misreading what Fred/Morris was saying but it seemed to me he was bringing up the idea that science has a history of presenting assumptions as “fact” until another fact comes along that disproves it.
I will dig up some citations for you regarding Capernicus and Galileo.
Comment 1/31/2008
morris, it should be clear that by assumptions, I meant scientific hypotheses. read about the scientific method for a better understanding.
your question “which church” displays an ignorance you would be better off keeping to yourself.
bigu, 1546 is the date of first published Church objection to Copernicus’s work. But regardless, my original point was (should have been expressed as) pre-Copernicus, it was all philosophy and cojecture, not sientific theory. As soon as the first scientifically-founded work is published, the Church moved to suppress it for over 200 years.
In the context of the original comments, recent advances in science have moved evolution from a mere theory to a well-founded scientific framework that represents the best eplanation of what occured - and religios groups are trying to suppress it.
Comment 1/31/2008
Outtake from the Encyclopedia Brittanica
http://www.crystalinks.com/galileo.html
Janusz - you can’t have it both ways. If you are going to present an argument that some people in the church (i.e. Luther) were against the heliocentric view, then you need to acknowledge that some people within the church (i.e. Capernicus) were for it. If you are going to criticize the church heirarchy for opposing the heliocentric view, you must also, in fairness, acknowledge that for a significant period, the church heirarchy did not oppose the teaching.
If the church was strongly opposed to the idea prior to the 1600’s, does it not make sense that Copernicus would have been removed as a priest instead of having the support of popes as well as other religious leaders at the time?
Comment 1/31/2008
Ted > I agree that it is the best framework but it is still being taught as fact in schools and not as the best current explanation. And that makes a HUGE difference in the approach used.
Comment 1/31/2008
Big U wrote: “…you can’t have it both ways.”
Agreed. But my position has been consistent all along, that it is dangerous rely on faith alone, that it is dangerous to rely on one’s subjective interpretation of Scripture at the *expense* of empirical data. I honestly don’t see how the fact that Copernicus was a priest contradicts that. Copernicus was relying on empirical data whether because or in spite of his association with the Church. The Church officials who imprisoned Galileo were not.
Comment 1/31/2008
Big U, “taught as fact?” are you sure? Evolution is an entire field of study, complete with well-identified holes (a hol being a piece of the overall theory that is yet to be verified in the fossil record or reproduced in the lab)
Comment 1/31/2008
I agree that there are holes but if you go into any elementary, junior high, or high school where it is taught, you will be amazed at how often it is taught as fact. Not as “this is what evidence leads us to believe” but as fact. Very rarely, if ever, will you see a teacher indicate that evolution is not a fact.
In speaking with the teachers I have, they have indicated that they don’t teach about the holes because then the students begin to ask questions which can not be quickly or easily explained and they are not provided with enough time in class to do so properly. Thus evolution gets delivered as a fait accompli.
Comment 1/31/2008
Bringing this back the original point (tangent) I made, that is really one of the main problems with all teaching at that level. I don’t know if it is fair to make (unintentional) implications about evolution being unique in the fact that it is mistaught. Such a view would lead to the conclusion that perhaps evolution’s treating evolution as fact is “political. ” That MAY be. But, it wouldn’t make it unique. History is mis-taught similarly, and we almost certainly know the reason behind that IS “political.”
(In addition to the fact that teachers have such a difficult time establishing authority as is, they can’t bring themselves to voluntarily be in a situation in which they may have to answer “I don’t know” to a question.)
Anyway, my point is that if we are going to talk about the way evolution is taught, we should talk about within the context of the educational system.
Comment 1/31/2008
good comment digg.
Comment 1/31/2008
digg:
The problem with that is simply that nobody wants to. There’s no impetus to do so. By and large, the history that’s taught in public schools simply isn’t very controversial. Whether or not it ought to be is another matter, but it just isn’t.
Meanwhile, the teaching of evolution in science class shouldn’t be controversial, but in many places, it is.
For my part, I don’t have a major problem with the way either is typically taught. (Other than the fact that evolution often isn’t taught, because school boards are afraid of the noisy fundamentalist lobby…)
Finally, I’m curious as to just exactly what you mean when you characterize evolution as being “mistaught.”
Comment 1/31/2008
I was planning on skipping this, but again, it’s still going on so what the hey.
The original issue was teaching creationism as science.
Creationism is not science. Period. Never was, never will be. It is an answer in search of desired questions; it is a conclusion gathering carefully-vetted “evidence.” It makes no testable predictions and is not falsifiable. It is not science.
The theory of evolution is science. Evidence came first, leading to a hypothesis whose predictions were verified by later observation, including not only direct observation of intra-species evolution but an ever growing list of transitional forms between species. Paleontology, geology, biology (including microbiology and studies of DNA) form an interlocking network of evidence.
Which raises another point: Evolution is a fact. It is every bit as much a fact as gravity. The details of the scientific theories describing the mechanisms of each are the subject of argument (gravitons, anyone?) but the fact that those phenomena exist is not.
And that, in turn, demonstrates again why creationism is not science: Arguments are part of science. You know all those examples some folks toss out about what “we used to think” as if they were clever and original debating points? We no longer think them because of science. Because of new evidence leading to altered hypotheses leading to new understandings leading to adjusted (and sometimes overthrown) theories. Science never claims to have the ultimate, the final, the absolute, unquestionable-for-all-time answer. It claims, rather, to have the best answer we have come up with so far. That is a test creationism is utterly unable to pass.
Comment 1/31/2008
A few other notes on another topic:
- Copernicus’s position as a canon was much more of a sinecure than a vocation. The repeated references to him as a “Catholic priest” are both imprecise and irrelevant.
- The first canonical attack on De revolutionibus did not come in 1616 but in 1546, just three years after publication.
- The reason official condemnation was not sooner and harsher is that the work was very useful in adjusting calendars and predicting the proper date for Easter, defined as the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox, something only careful observations made possible to predict years in advance.
- A more important reason for the lack of reaction was that Andreas Osiander changed the preface of the book to one stating that the heliocentric view it presented was not to be taken as the truth but merely as a way to simplify the calculations. Yes, there is dispute over whether Copernicus’s delay in publishing was concern over attack by “natural philosophers” or the Church, but the fact is the book was published in a way to curtail the threat from the latter.
- Copernicus is considered by some to be “the father” of science as we understand the concept because his work was based on careful, precise (more exactly, as precise as his instruments allowed) observations. Certainly he was one of the founders of modern science. Which means in turn that all the claims, arguments, and references to beliefs of medieval times or ancient Greece or whatever are not references to science as we know the term.
Comment 1/31/2008
Prior to being published, Copernicus was asked to attend to Popes and share his views with them because they were interested. And they also supported his research. Perhaps that is why there was no significant opposition to him earlier.
When I was growing up, Brontosaurus was taught as fact. Later, Coleocanth being a transitional fossil was taught as fact. Several human specimens ideas have been taught as fact (Neanderthal man) regarding what was thought about them only to have these facts changed later. These things were not taught as ideas or speculation, but foregone conclusions. The same thing is happening with global warming (oops, now it is climate change) now. Since I have been young, science has worked to remove the idea that a hypothesis must be testable for both being right or wrong. At least the science that relies so incredibly heavily on funding has done so.
I don’t think creation should be taught in schools as it is a religious belief system but I don’t think evolution should be taught as fact either.
Comment 1/31/2008
Copernicus was asked to attend to Popes and share his views with them because they were interested.
Yes, and I specified why. Trying to turn that into their endorsement of a heliocentric system reaches far, far beyond the evidence.
When I was growing up, [this, that, and other other thing were] taught as fact.
Which only serves to prove my point about the self-corrective nature of science. More importantly, not one of these corrections had any impact whatsoever on the actual theory of evolution but only on a few of the detals as to how it played out. These were no more challenges to the theory than uncovering new moons of Jupiter is a challenge to astronomy.
(Sidebar: Juat FYI, it’s “coelacanth.”)
global warming (oops, now it is climate change)
I’m not going to get sidetracked here, but I will say it always was both and the terms are used interchangeably. Some prefer “climate change” because while on average the world is getting warmer (thus “global warming”), not every individual place will feel the same effect; some will even cool. Ignorance is not argument.
science has worked to remove the idea that a hypothesis must be testable for both being right or wrong
I have no idea what that means. The idea of falsifiability is that there must be a way to test a hypothesis in a way that could prove it wrong. Hypotheses explain existing data and make predictions about future data. Those predictions can’t be right, say, 90% of the time and wrong 10% - if they’re not always right, that hypothesis has disproven; it has been falsified. (Oh, and before anyone says anything, if a hypothesis predicts an experimental result of, say, 2.6 units and the actual result is 2.4 units, that doesn’t necessarily disprove the hypothesis. It depends on how important it is to the hypothesis that the answer be exactly 2.6. That is, depending on the details, a result of 2.4 could disprove the hypothesis or it could “tend to confirm” it.)
Put another way, science can never say a theory has been “proven right,” since if even a single future case undermines it, it’s wrong despite any and all earlier successes. What it can say is that such-and-such a theory has never been proven wrong. And the more tests that theory passes, the more new data fit into the theory rather than refuting it, as even corrections to the facts leave the structure of the theory untouched, the more confidence we can have in it. Science has a very high level of confidence in the theory of evolution.
I don’t think evolution should be taught as fact either.
Evolution, as I’ve already said, is a fact. Unless you want to refuse to teach that gravity is a fact, there is no basis for denying evolution. Well, actually there is no basis, period, but at least denying gravity would be consistent.
Comment 2/1/2008
Big U:
It should be instructive to note that the types of arguments you are using to try to cast doubt on evolution (and global warming, and anything else you find ideologically inconvenient) are the same sorts of arguments that tobacco companies used for years to deny that their products cause cancer.
Comment 2/1/2008
When I say mis-taught, TG, I’m referring to Big U’s complaint about evolution being taught as fact. One point I think that probably should be stated in relation to such an objection is that if the scientific method, and science itself, is taught well, the need to explicitly state the inherent uncertainties with in a prevailing scientific theory is moot.
Again, I’m not debating the evolution is science. Although, I don’t know if I agree with LarryE that it’s a fact (isn’t the evidence the “facts” and evolution the most sensible conclusion that has been posited to explain them). Whatever.
For me, evolution can exist comfortable within the scope of what we call, “science.” People can even call it a “fact.” I’ll skip the actual, “what does it even mean to be a fact” bit, you can fill it in for yourself.
The problem is the weight words like “fact” and “science” hold in casual debate, even when they are used incorrectly. They’re also words that “politicize” arguments. The debates about the nature of science dominate the discussion on an issue that we are probably in violent agreement on.
Comment 2/1/2008
“and anything else you find ideologically inconvenient”
Care to explain that comment Tgirsch? Cause the way it sounds is that you are saying I am approaching things the way I am simply because it doesn’t fit with my views or ideas.
Comment 2/1/2008
digg:
Not to presume to speak for LarryE, but I’ve often heard evolution broken out into two aspects: the fact of evolution (simply, that it happened), and the theory of evolution (the well-established scientific theory concerning how it happened).
In any case, if there is some “misteaching” going on, it’s not of evolutionary theory, but of science itself. If your argument is that we could be doing a better job of teaching the scientific method, you won’t get an argument from me.
Big U:
Not “simply” because of that, but I’d say in large part because of that, yes. I’ve never encountered anyone non-religious who disputes the theory of evolution, and I don’t think I’ve ever encountered someone who’s not a conservative Christian who does so (although I may be forgetting about an orthodox Jew somewhere in the mix). (To be fair, I do know plenty of Christians, even a few conservative ones, who accept evolution.) The fact that virtually all of the opposition comes from one specific ideological demographic — religious fundamentalists — strongly suggests to me that the objections to evolutionary theory are ideological rather than scientific. Indeed, the “scientific” criticisms of evolution, apart from minor points of detail, generally turn out to not be scientific at all.
The same goes for global warming/climate change. I know absolutely no one who denies anthropogenic global warming who is not also either a political conservative or a libertarian. This hardly seems like coincidence to me. When a subset of one ideological group (and only that group) stands virtually alone in opposition to a widely accepted scientific theory, I find it extremely difficult to believe that their objections are purely scientific in nature.
The bottom line is that there is no significant scientific debate as to whether evolution and global warming are real. Those debates are political and ideological, not scientific.
Of course, in your particular case, you could prove me wrong. All you would have to do is acknowledge that you’re open to being convinced that these theories are, in fact, largely correct, and establish a reasonable standard of what it would take to convince you. (And no, personally observing and/or replicating a process that takes thousands of years does not constitute a “reasonable standard.”)
Comment 2/1/2008
Tgirsch > I will try to explain my position as clearly as possible because it seems I have failed to do so.
Re: evolution - I have no problem with evolution being taught as the best scientific explanation we have at this time. What I have a problem with is the way it is taught as a fait accompli.
If someone were able to explain the process that it would take for one single cell to a full human body, that would satisfy me. I am not talking about the actual process, though that would be appreciated. But I am, rather, talking about getting to a fully functional human. In my limited knowledge of the human body, I see very few internal organs that could be done without. Even the lack of external parts (eyes, nose, mouth, ears) would potentially result in death in the past.
Find a logical explanation of how all of the parts suddenly came together to work in concert, driven by an incredibly complex brain and nervous system and I will be willing to accept evolution. Heck, even put together a detailed explanation of how a human (or some ancestor) could have survived long-term while missing significant parts (especially internally) and I will be willing to be convinced.
I’m not trying to be a jerk, but that is what it would take. The complexity, intricacy and detail with which everything in the world works in an interrelated fashion makes chance very difficult for me to believe. Especially when it has been observed how the sudden introduction or removal of even one supposedly minute part of an ecosystem can easily destroy the balance.
Re: Global warming/climate change. I know of no-one who is seriously saying there is no change happening. Where I see science failing is the huge concensus that man is responsible for causing the largest part of global warming and that when anyone who disagrees(regardless of how detailed or accurate their research may be) is immediately ridiculed and mocked. That is where I see science as proceeding with an agenda rather than with a scientific approach.
Comment 2/1/2008
digg -
Evolution is a fact. Period. This is not something about which there is dispute; even “creation science” types have been forced by the sheer mass of evidence to admit that intraspecies evolution (which they previously denied) occurs. Such intraspecies evolution has been directly observed in various species, including types of birds. Evolution is why we see the emergence of treatment-resistant bacteria: Were there no evolution, no change, that could not happen.
The theory of evolution is the best-existing, best-ever description of how that process works. What is argued among scientists is the details of that theory, not its fundamentals. If I appear hard-headed about this, so be it, but evolution is a fact and the theory is the best description of it. To deny the theory of evolution is to deny virtually all of modern biology.
Comment 2/2/2008
Big U -
Your argument “how could all this have come about all at once” is not new; it’s called the “mousetrap argument,” the idea being that if you take away any one part of a mousetrap it won’t work so how could this whole thing have appeared in one fell swoop? Impossible!
The flaw is that it makes two wholly untenable assumptions: one, that the individual parts could not have already existed, used for some other purpose, only to be grabbed for use in a mousetrap at some later time. Two, that a mousetrap minus one of its parts could not be useful for some other purpose. (For example, a mousetrap minus its trigger would still function as a handy spring-based clamp.)
So your demand for an explanation of how all the organs of a human “suddenly came together to work in concert” is based on a false premise. Doubly false, in fact, because you refer to “chance” as a central concept. While there is some element of chance involved in evolution (via random mutations, some of which will prove beneficial), no evolutionary biologist would say that the elements of an organism “suddenly came together” purely or even significantly by “chance.”
There are lots of websites out there that discuss evolution and evolutionary theory in lay terms. I suggest that if you really are willing to be convinced, you should check them out.
(Sidebar: An amusing look at how a mousetrap could have “evolved” naturally in just 10 steps can be found here.)
Finally on climate change: First, it’s interesting that you say “I know of no-one who is seriously saying there is no change happening.” Not so long ago, that is exactly what the naysayers were claiming. Some of them still do, insisting global warming is a “hoax.” But just like the creationists who denied any evolution but who now say “Oh, of course, intraspecies evolution, sure! But interspecies evolution, well, that’s different, that’s the real issue,” we now have global warming deniers who airly acknowledge what they previously denied. “Oh, yeah, sure, warming, yeah. But it’s the sun. Or something else. But not us, no siree, nothing to do with people.”
What’s more, I do find it odd that you acknowledge a “huge consensus” that human activity is the primary cause but label it an “agenda” rather than science when the nanny-nanny naysayers aren’t taken seriously by the scientific community. Perhaps we should also give a respectful hearing to the pyramid power folks and the UFO-ologists (the latter of who may have more to go on than the climate change deniers).
Comment 2/2/2008
LarryE > your mousetrap example assumes a very high level of intelligence as all the changes indicated result from a pre-planned decision to make changes in order to catch the mice better.
Using your example would mean that evolution was responsible for designing the kidney to do exactly what it does and how it does it now. Or the liver. Or the heart. And even the entire nervous system. That would require an incredibly complex level of intelligence.
I would appreciate it if you could locate a website of an evolutionary biologist that explains with some intelligence how the human body could get to the point that it is now at over a long period of time or even a sudden change. I have not been able to find anything other than general assumptions and “I think” sites that lay out their argument based on a pre-conceived certainty that it HAD TO HAVE HAPPENED rather than a scientific approach. You are quite certain of your position, so I would hope you have significant enough detailed support for it.
Comment 2/2/2008
Big U -
Okay, this is my last on this thread. I expect this will come up again at some point, so for now it’s gone as far as it should.
Your example assumes
Oh, that’s just ridiculous. Even noted “creation scientist” Michael Behe didn’t raise such a patently spurious objection in his response. The site was in rebuttal to the use of a mousetrap to illustrate the creationist argument of “irreducible complexity,” the specious claim that some structures must have appeared all at one. It showed how a mousetrap could have “evolved” starting from an empty room using no mechanisms other than random mutation and natural selection. No “pre-planned decision” was involved anywhere along the line. I’m going to be gracious and assume you simply were not paying attention rather than that you were deliberately misreading it.
As for your list of organs and systems, there’s a limit to how much of your research I’m willing to do for you. However, I will note that a good outline of the evolution of the kidney from a simple organ for maintaining proper internal water pressure in fish to the more complex filtering/waste removal organ found in later animals has been known for over 50 years. No “incredibly complex intelligence” (wink-wink-nudge-nudge) required.
As for your complaints about “‘I think’ sites” with “pre-conceived certainty,” I expect it’s because some things are so well-established that it would seem unnecessary or a waste of space to lay them out. It would be like going to a site explaining how planes fly and claiming the description was based on “pre-conceived certainty” because it didn’t include proofs of the existence of gravity and air. As I said before, ignorance is not argument.
Comment 2/2/2008
Back to signifier and signified…again!
Not to presume to speak for LarryE, but I’ve often heard evolution broken out into two aspects: the fact of evolution (simply, that it happened), and the theory of evolution (the well-established scientific theory concerning how it happened).
This is a false dichotomy, one can’t exist without the other. What happened, the physical, visible changes that occurred in the development of life forms over an incredible period is indeed a fact. Those physical, essential events, have no intrinsic relation to a man-made theory that we have labeled, “evolution.” If evolution didn’t happen as we claim it did (we can debate precisely how accurately we have to get it), then the “it” in the sentence “Simply that it happened” no longer refers to evolution.
In fact, the “it” never refers to “evolution.” It simply refers to the actions we have strung together by creating a theory (a pretty good one, most would say) that we call “evolution.” And, that is why it is not a fact - it is just our best interpretation of them.
If the theory of evolution was never posited, it wouldn’t change the events upon which the theory is currently based. Whatever happened, happened, regardless of how it is interpreted.
Again, I’m not debating anything about the strength of the strength of evolution’s case as an explainer of events. As usual, my objections are more about the way we organize language around this debate. There are a lot of syntactical power plays going on in this debate. But, I’m not acknowledging them.
It’s science!
…Okay, so?…
Comment 2/2/2008
“It’s science!
…Okay, so?…”
assuming this is not a completely rhetorical question; we teach science in school, and not religion. Which is the crux of this thread. Why do we teach science in school? Because, while it might be more amusing to focus on angel/pin head density, doing so won’t advance our civilization as much as science will.
Comment 2/2/2008
Damn, LarryE beat me to it. So, i’ll just post the links I was going to include:
A useful resource: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
Behe is one of the “cdesign proponentsists” (read that spelling carefully): http://www.ocellated.com/2006/01/27/cdesign-proponentsists
Behe is not a scientist: http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/11/hello-again-michael-behe.html
To reiterate, the design of mousetraps illustrates the (very real) possibility of incremental complexity, regardless of whether organisms are designed or evolved.
Comment 2/2/2008
Digg, you have a good point… but are wrong.
If “the theory of evolution” referred to the interpretation that current observations are explained by changes in species over time, you’d be dead on; that would indeed be identical to “the fact of evolution” and making the distinction would be spurious.
But that’s not the case. There are three things of relevance here: (1) The current observations, such as known DNA sequences, and phenotypic similarity. (2) The changes of organism over time. (3) The theory of evolution by differential preservation due to natural selection.
That (1) is a category of facts is self-evident. (2) is also a category of fact, insomuchas it is a description of reality that is undisputable by recourse to other aspects of observable reality. Sure, no individual has seen changes in primates over time, but the alternatives are trickster gods or grand conspiracies by historians and naturalists of the past.
Sure, (2) is a lesser form of fact than (1), being derivative rather than observational, but it is as much fact as the path of Mars around the sun for the last few billion years (or at least six thousand).
You’re complain hinges not on the description of (2) as fact, but on the distinction of it from “the theory of evolution”. But “the theory of evolution” is a phrase that has a most unfortunate history, being much abused, and having been made to stand in for a longer, more meaningful phrase.
A theory of just evolution would indeed be the sequence of deductions that yield (2) from (1). It’s a theory, in a fashion, in that it is a coherent explanation of a set of observations (item (1)), yielding a meaningful prediction (item (2)). But the prediction is only that observed features of creatures and genomes have not been static over time and reports of those features will be different from era to era.
What is almost universally meant by the “theory of evolution” is a theory that uses (2), not (1) as its observations, and whose prediction is not that populations change over time, but how and why they do.
Certainly, it is unfortunate that the word ‘evolution’ means something different in the phrase ‘fact of evolution’ and the phrase ‘theory of evolution’, and it is certainly the former meaning that matches the ancient vernacular usage of the word. But really, I blame the idiot creationists who have gotten scientists too fucking tired of saying the same damn thing over and over.
Comment 2/2/2008
digg -
Since this really is about semantics rather than evolution, I feel free to throw this in despite my saying I’m done with the thread.
Your argument about the word “fact,” as in “the fact of evolution” is superficially clever but ultimately unsound. At its core, it insists on equating evolution, the process, with the theory of evolution, the well-supported description of that process. But - since we are talking about “the way we organize language” - note that “of evolution” is a prepositional phrase; it’s a modifier of the word “theory.” On the other hand, “evolution” as a process is a noun. So your argument rests on making an adjectival phrase and a noun the same thing. They are not. Rather than others creating a false dichotomy, you have created a false confluence.
Put another way, it amounts to equating the noun “sky” with the adjective “sky” in “sky blue,” going outside on a overcast day, and declaring that “sky” is not a fact.
If you don’t like that (and I expect you won’t) consider this: The first use of the word “gravity” in its scientific sense preceded by nearly 50 years Newton’s putting it on a sound (observational, mathematical, theoretical) scientific basis. Does that mean that anyone in that period who referred to “gravity” was not referring to a fact?
Go further: Einstein showed that while Newton’s laws gave close approximations of gravity’s effects at non-relativistic velocities (still good enough for all our satellites, space shots, etc.), he was wrong about the nature of the force. So during those intervening roughly 225 years, should schools have been teaching that gravity is not a fact?
If quantum theorists are correct, Einstein may have not had it quite right, either, and if gravitons are ever discovered, they will have a very strong case. Should schools today decline to call gravity a fact?
It seems to me you are doing a lot of straining and parsing in order to justify having schools say “evolution is not a fact” with all the implications that carries even as you admit that the process “is indeed a fact.” So how about this: As an introduction to a school unit on evolution, the first day is taken up with a discussion of what constitutes a scientific theory. The second day starts with a simple definition of evolution; we can even use your phrase “physical, visible changes that occurred in the development of life forms over an incredible period” as a starting point, figuring a more exact definition can come later.
We then say “There have been various attempts to explain and describe this process, but only one of them has withstood all scientific challenge and stands as the best, the strongest, the most-supported, and in fact the only existing valid scientific theory on this, one on which almost all of modern biology is based: the theory of evolution.” We then go on to briefly explain why creationism, “creation science,” “intelligent design,” and their ilk fail as science before getting to a more in-depth discussion of evolution and evolutionary theory.
Would that satisfy you? If not, precisely what “fact” is it that should not be presented as one? Why? And based on your own argument, what would be the result in that case?
Comment 2/2/2008
I again appeal to the gods of LL to reskin the site to show speakers’ names at the TOP of their posts.
Comment 2/3/2008
I second Dan’s request.
Comment 2/3/2008
Ted and Dan M.
Is it better now?
Comment 2/3/2008
Kevin, thank you, but I actually meant in the comments, too. But thank you for a good start.
Comment 2/3/2008
(By the way, we generally don’t need to know which of you, TG, and KTK are talking; you sound completely different.)
Comment 2/3/2008
Dan M
This okay?
Comment 2/4/2008
Ted: “your question “which church” displays an ignorance you would be better off keeping to yourself.
bigu, 1546 is the date of first published Church objection to Copernicus’s work. But regardless, my original point was (should have been expressed as) pre-Copernicus, it was all philosophy and cojecture, not sientific theory. As soon as the first scientifically-founded work is published, the Church moved to suppress it for over 200 years.”
Nice avoidance. Believe it or not there have been several other churches besides the Roman Catholic Church. Surely you are not ignorant of that fact.
Comment 2/4/2008
Big U:
It looks like LarryE and DanM have already answered the questions you addressed to me. But once again, I have to say that the nature of your questions betrays a failure to understand the most basic concepts of the theory of evolution. If you actually understood the processes that the theory describes, you wouldn’t have asked those questions, at least not in that way. So again, despite your claims (in another thread) that you’re well-versed in the theory, that seems not to be the case.
Morris:
Believe it or not there have been several other churches besides the Roman Catholic Church.
How many of them had significant influence with national governments in the 16th and 17th centuries? How many of them could have someone imprisoned or executed for blasphemy?
In the time (and location) of Copernicus and Galileo, the Roman Catholic Church was the only one that held that kind of influence. Surely you are not ignorant of that fact.
Comment 2/4/2008
tgirsch > As I dig further into some of the links that have been provided, I must admit that there is a great deal more depth than I was aware of.
Unfortunately, the more I dig, the more I see circular reasoning and assumptions being presented as fact which does concern me. I will continue to do more reading on the sites given and see if I become more convinced of the validity of evolution or more concerned with it’s proponents seeming belief in its infallibility. Perhaps it is the skeptic in me.
I will reiterate, having studied the human body in order to obtain registered massage therapist certification, it is incredibly difficult for me to believe that something that works as intricately as the human body simply evolved. Especially when there are several aspects to the body that defy the “survival of the fittest” and “natural selection” ideas.
Comment 2/4/2008
Tgirsch wrote: “In the time (and location) of Copernicus and Galileo, the Roman Catholic Church was the only one that held that kind of influence.
The addition of “location” qualifies the above.
In the east, Orthodoxy was predominant officially since the 11th century (and de facto from the beginning of the church). By the mid-16th century there are areas where Protestantism exerts stronger influence. But to my knowledge, all were opposed to heliocentrism, so none of this alters the argument above.
I just saw a hair to split!
Comment 2/4/2008
Janusz:
That’s why I was careful to point out the location. I wasn’t sure on the date of the Church of England, for example. But in any case, where Copernicus and Galileo were concerned, the Roman Catholic Church is the only relevant one.
Big U:
First, let me start by saying I’m glad you’re starting to dig more into the details. It speaks very well of your character. Moving on:
the more I dig, the more I see circular reasoning and assumptions being presented as fact which does concern me.
This is a combination of two things: First, you’re predisposed to think that way, and it’s difficult for any of us to overcome deeply-seeded presuppositions. But second, and more importantly, explaining things in a way that laypeople can understand necessarily involves glossing over some details. If there are points of detail that give you pause or concern, you can drill down on those points of detail and get more information. That’s the beauty of science.
it is incredibly difficult for me to believe that something that works as intricately as the human body simply evolved
Again, it’s difficult to fathom, and yet all the evidence points to it being true. I have a hard time believing that as I sit here typing this, I’m actually moving at well over 1,000 miles per hour, but that’s true, too. That’s what’s so beautiful and awe-inspiring about it (to me, at least). Even if you want to look at it from a religious standpoint, and say that evolution is the mechanism that God used (something I don’t personally believe, but work with me), it would be brilliant for its simplicity.
Especially when there are several aspects to the body that defy the “survival of the fittest” and “natural selection” ideas.
Such as?
Comment 2/4/2008