Texas voting on science textbooks for public schools - evolution vs. creation

[Jerico]

http://rt.com/usa/texas-textbooks-evolution-creationism-990/

 

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/texas/article/Texas-mulls-new-textbooks-sparks-evolution-debate-4820158.php

 

As an educator in Texas, I am mortified.

 

This should not be a debate in 2013. Creation is a faith-based theory. It is not science. It is faith that went in search of science to support a particular understanding of Christian faith.

 

A faith based science has absolutely no place in a secular textbook used for public schooled children.

We are NOT a Christian country - and many millions of Christian's don't believe in Creationism.

^ this thinking is part of why we homeschool.

[Cricket]

I 100% agree. Just 6 mos ago, I was in the 'maybe but unlikely' camp when it came to evolution. There was SO MUCH info (so I thought) out there to "prove" why evolution couldn't be. The problem was that I was only reading the naysayers. I thought I understood evolution. I was so wrong. Thanks to the wonderful folks here, I decided to read the other side. I read On the Origin of Species, Why Evolution is True, and My Inner Fish. The old arguments I used to fall for seem absurd now. Misrepresentation is an awfully nice way to describe what is being done by some anti-evolution groups.

 

I agree that this is a big problem.  I attended public school.  Our school taught evolution.  I use "taught" lightly because the textbooks mentioned it but never explained it.  I knew nothing about the theory of evolution when I graduated.  The only thing I knew about it was what I got from Creationists.  We are Christian.  We bring God into our science discussions and every other discussion but my kids are also learning that science is a specific thing and they are learning what the scientific method is.  Science isn't different than grammar or math.  It is what it is.  If anything, Texas should be looking at what is actually taught--whether it is current information (because that is another big problem in science textbooks!) and whether it is understandable.

[MIch elle]

So is the Germ Theory of Disease, but I hope you wash your hands after you go to the bathroom. Or maybe you don't, because 'its only a theory' that getting poo germs from your hands into your food will make you sick. I guess you take your chances. I accept the facts as presented by science and use soap and water

 

:smilielol5: :smilielol5: :smilielol5: :smilielol5: :smilielol5:

[Desert Strawberry]

I would still like to know how adaptation is not evolution ? 

I have not heard this argument before. I would like to understand it. Could someone please explain?

[Haiku]

Science isn't different than grammar or math. 

 

This. You can teach your children if you so desire that this sentence doesn't need any commas and the subject and the verb agrees and you can tell them if you want to that your religious book says that there is no such thing as a runon sentence and that the word runon shouldn't be hypenated because your deity don't wants it to be and that's your choice. But in grammar class, your child should be taught how to correctly use commas, how to create agreement between subjects and verbs, that two complete sentences joined by a conjunction without a comma creates a run-on sentence, and that some words require hyphens, because grammar is about the use of language and not  about religious beliefs on language.

[idnib]

I would still like to know how adaptation is not evolution ? 

I have not heard this argument before. I would like to understand it. Could someone please explain?

 

 

I believe in evolution and so am in no way actually defending this, just trying to answer the question:

 

I think some people believe that different types of species were created by God and put on earth and they adapted from there. So adaptation is the ability for living things to adapt through selection and is an inherent quality, but they were created in whole and did not evolve from other things. So there is no link between a bacteria and an elephant and a monkey. They were created as those things and within their species they can adapt to survive.

 

Like I said, I don't believe in this, but I watched a documentary on this belief years ago. Hopefully I've answered the question correctly.

[Truscifi]

I'm in danger of running out of likes from this thread.

[sunnyday]

I 100% agree. Just 6 mos ago, I was in the 'maybe but unlikely' camp when it came to evolution. There was SO MUCH info (so I thought) out there to "prove" why evolution couldn't be. The problem was that I was only reading the naysayers. I thought I understood evolution. I was so wrong. Thanks to the wonderful folks here, I decided to read the other side. I read On the Origin of Species, Why Evolution is True, and My Inner Fish. The old arguments I used to fall for seem absurd now. Misrepresentation is an awfully nice way to describe what is being done by some anti-evolution groups.

 

I love this! Rhetoric-stage thinking at its finest. Of necessity, you've incorporated grammar-stage: what's known? And logic-stage: what does it mean, how do different pieces of information go together? and finally culminated in making an informed critical judgment: now that I have and understand the information available what do I think about it? *high-fives*

 

This is why I aspire to homeschool, or failing that, to round out my kids' educations to a level commensurate with a high-quality homeschool.  :D

[Desert Strawberry]

I believe in evolution and so am in no way actually defending this, just trying to answer the question:

 

I think some people believe that different types of species were created by God and put on earth and they adapted from there. So adaptation is the ability for living things to adapt through selection and is an inherent quality, but they were created in whole and did not evolve from other things. So there is no link between a bacteria and an elephant and a monkey. They were created as those things and within their species they can adapt to survive.

 

Like I said, I don't believe in this, but I watched a documentary on this belief years ago. Hopefully I've answered the question correctly.

Ah. Thank you. I have heard that before, now that I am reminded of it.

 

I would like to hear from someone who can defend this belief as to why they hold it and how they came to it.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think some people believe that different types of species were created by God and put on earth and they adapted from there. So adaptation is the ability for living things to adapt through selection and is an inherent quality, but they were created in whole and did not evolve from other things. So there is no link between a bacteria and an elephant and a monkey. They were created as those things and within their species they can adapt to survive.

Even if one believes that, they are still believing in evolution. Not claiming the word doesn't make it go away. Instead, people should say that they don't believe in macroevolution or that they don't believe in abiogenesis or something else.

[Orthodox6]

Ah. Thank you. I have heard that before, now that I am reminded of it.

 

I would like to hear from someone who can defend this belief as to why they hold it and how they came to it.

 

The following is presented as an attempt to answer the question, only.  It is not fodder for personal attacks.

 

Patristic teaching is that God created all forms of life.  Traditionally, this is understood that each species was created individually.  (As an aside:  Eastern Orthodox do not, in general, believe in a "young earth".)  Humans are, however, distinct from animals and came into existence via a separate "special creation", made by God.  We are not animals, although we share the physical characteristics of mammals and function by the customary biological processes.  The distinction is that only humans possess an eternal soul.  Animal souls pass from existence when the animal dies.  

[Ipsey]

DH and I are looking for a new job (*sob*) as his project was cut in the state where we're at. We love it here.

We're looking all over the US and in Europe as well as Australia and New Zealand (husband is forester/ecologist/wildlife biologist).

 

We have a few states we're not even considering though, and Texas is numero uno.

 

And I'm sure Texas would just as soon I didn't move there anyway. :)

 

 

[Mrs Mungo]

DH and I are looking for a new job (*sob*) as his project was cut in the state where we're at. We love it here.

We're looking all over the US and in Europe as well as Australia and New Zealand (husband is forester/ecologist/wildlife biologist).

 

We have a few states we're not even considering though, and Texas is numero uno.

 

And I'm sure Texas would just as soon I didn't move there anyway. :)

Hey, there are basically no rules governing homeschooling! Yay!

 

For the record, my dh attended a private Christian school in Dallas and *still* learned about evolution.

[Desert Strawberry]

The following is presented as an attempt to answer the question, only.  It is not fodder for personal attacks.

 

Patristic teaching is that God created all forms of life.  Traditionally, this is understood that each species was created individually.  (As an aside:  Eastern Orthodox do not, in general, believe in a "young earth".)  Humans are, however, distinct from animals and came into existence via "special creation", made by God.  We are not animals, although we share the physical characteristics of mammals and function by the customary biological processes.  The distinction is that only humans possess an eternal soul.  Animal souls pass from existence when the animal dies.  

Thank you.

 

How would this impact the methods of teaching this material? 

Would the e word be left out, but the process be described the same way?

Would the lineage of the phyla not be brought into the discussion? 

Is this how neutral curricula approach this topic?

[Chelli]

Not dipping a toe into the evolution/creation debate, but since Texas is not adopting Common Core, how would this effect textbooks nationwide? 

 

Since most of the states are aligning with Common Core would the only schools to use these textbooks be Texas schools? 

[Orthodox6]

Thank you.

 

How would this impact the methods of teaching this material? 

Would the e word be left out, but the process be described the same way?

Would the lineage of the phyla not be brought into the discussion? 

Is this how neutral curricula approach this topic?

 

You're welcome1

 

Not avoiding your good questions.  Just have to go cook dinner and prepare school for tomorrow. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So is the Germ Theory of Disease, but I hope you wash your hands after you go to the bathroom. Or maybe you don't, because 'its only a theory' that getting poo germs from your hands into your food will make you sick. I guess you take your chances. I accept the facts as presented by science and use soap and water

 

What's scary is that there is a vocal segment of the Mercola/Natural News/anti-vaccination crowd that simply does not accept the Germ Theory of Disease.

[Mergath]

What's scary is that there is a vocal segment of the Mercola/Natural News/anti-vaccination crowd that simply does not accept the Germ Theory of Disease.

 

Really?  Wow.  What do they think causes disease if not germs?

[Forget-Me-Not]

.

[albeto.]

Even if one believes that, they are still believing in evolution. Not claiming the word doesn't make it go away. Instead, people should say that they don't believe in macroevolution or that they don't believe in abiogenesis or something else.

 

Not to pick on you personally, Mrs. Mungo, but just to take the opportunity to clarify that evolution (macroevolution and even abiogenesis) is not a belief system in which one believes or doesn't believe. Scientific theories, like evolution, are fact. One either understands it, or does not, but belief is not required.

[J-rap]

I am a Christian, but I get really nervous when I hear about religious views going into science textbooks. I steered far away from Apologia and other similar books when teaching my children science, because I can't stand how some Christian communities twist science to support their views.

 

I don't think we as Christians should be afraid of science. Science and what we understand about it evolves over time, but as long as textbooks keep up and try and stick with scientific fact as best as they can, that's the best we can hope for, isn't it? It is my belief that over time, science will get closer to finding the correct answers, and as a Christian, I believe that it will reveal God's truths, not bury them. But that's a different subject altogether. :)

 

In the meantime, let's keep religious views out of textbooks.

[Mrs Mungo]

Not to pick on you personally, Mrs. Mungo, but just to take the opportunity to clarify that evolution (macroevolution and even abiogenesis) is not a belief system in which one believes or doesn't believe. Scientific theories, like evolution, are fact. One either understands it, or does not, but belief is not required.

People disbelieve in facts all the time. Look at all of the people who "don't believe" in mental illness or "don't believe" that smoking while pregnant makes a difference in the health of a baby. In no way did my post suggest that we should clap our hands, if we believe in evolution in order to keep it alive. Your statement has nothing to do with the point I was making.

 

By believing in adaptation, they *are* believing in evolution. They should not set the word aside because they don't like the history or implications of the word. It makes them look foolish. It has nothing to do with how one looks at the science.

 

Abiogenesis (unlike evolution) is NOT considered scientific fact. I am friends with a whole group of ATHEIST astrophysicists who disagree with the theory of abiogenesis.

[nmoira]

Abiogenesis (unlike evolution) is NOT considered scientific fact. I am friends with a whole group of ATHEIST astrophysicists who disagree with the theory of abiogenesis.

 

Did you listen to Science Friday last week? About the possibility of Earth's life having begun on Mars? While it was interesting, it was also so out there, that I really had to wonder if it warranted such a long segment of the show.  [Of course, we joke about tardigrades seeing life  elsewhere in the cosmos, so why not?)

[Ipsey]

People disbelieve in facts all the time. Look at all of the people who "don't believe" in mental illness or "don't believe" that smoking while pregnant makes a difference in the health of a baby. In no way did my post suggest that we should clap our hands, if we believe in evolution in order to keep it alive. Your statement has nothing to do with the point I was making.

 

By believing in adaptation, they *are* believing in evolution. They should not set the word aside because they don't like the history or implications of the word. It makes them look foolish. It has nothing to do with how one looks at the science.

 

Abiogenesis (unlike evolution) is NOT considered scientific fact. I am friends with a whole group of ATHEIST astrophysicists who disagree with the theory of abiogenesis.

 

Nicely said.

 

(And as to the mental illness example, here's a fascinating/horrifying study that's just been done. To wit: Half of American Evangelicals believe that Bible study and prayer ALONE can cause people to overcome bi-polar, depression, and schizophrenia. And it's 35% among all Americans--including Evangelicals.)  I'm wondering if you've read this recently.

 

http://blog.lifeway.com/newsroom/2013/09/17/half-of-evangelicals-believe-prayer-can-heal-mental-illness/

[LucyStoner]

When it doesn't get across in words, there's always song.  

 

"A scientific theory isn't just a hunch or guess--it's more like a question that's been put through a lot of tests."

 

 

People can reject the theory of evolution all they like.  But when they discount it as in any way shape or form "just a theory", I know that I am not talking to someone with a deep understanding of the scientific method.  

[LucyStoner]

Really?  Wow.  What do they think causes disease if not germs?

 

Negative vibrations? Demons?  Unicorn vomit?  

 

I'll stick with science but thanks anyways!  :laugh:  

[nmoira]

Negative vibrations? Demons? Unicorn vomit?

 

I'll stick with science but thanks anyways! :laugh:

It's usually the fault of the ill person. Either they didn't eat right or have the right attitude or take the right supplements. A truly healthy body can fight anything. Even cancer. We all have cancer cells, but some people let them take hold and grow.

[Truscifi]

Negative vibrations? Demons?  Unicorn vomit?  

 

I'll stick with science but thanks anyways!  :laugh:  

 

Don't be silly.  Everyone knows unicorns vomit rainbows.

[Dana]

When it doesn't get across in words, there's always song.

 

I have had that song in my head ALL DAY!

[LucyStoner]

It's usually the fault of the ill person. Either they didn't eat right or have the right attitude or take the right supplements. A truly healthy body can gems of anything. Even cancer. We all have cancer cells, but some people let them take hold and grow.

 

Oh, I met those people when my mother was fighting cancer.  We didn't get, um...get along.  While I don't dispute the lifestyle factors that contribute to a lot of cancers and illness, the idea that people who want to get well can always make themselves well is, well, the third rail for me.  I will go apeshit on people like that.  

[LucyStoner]

Don't be silly.  Everyone knows unicorns vomit rainbows.

 

True.  But do we KNOW that rainbows don't carry disease?  That's my belief and my belief must be respected.  

[nmoira]

True. But do we KNOW that rainbows don't carry disease? That's my belief and my belief must be respected.

*frown* I thought that was bad fairy dust.

[Lisbeth]

Texas and Rick Perry in particular have a fantastic way of embarrassing themselves in front of the entire world. I guess I should just pop some popcorn and see how this latest *business* as usual goes down. A pity really.

The rest of the world? The rest of the world should look in the mirror. There is so much fail in other countries and cultures I can't imagine why the US would care about their opinion or take their advice. Every country should focus on their own issues.

[Eagle]

Wonderful. Once again, the US is going to be the laughingstock of the developed world. Though really, if this does go through and our country ends up flooded with "science" textbooks teaching religion, our inclusion in the "developed world" should probably be reconsidered.

Until I joined this board I had no idea that there are places in the US (or anywhere else) that mix religion into science. It has been interesting to read the evolutionary discussion threads over the last year. Interesting and baffling. No disrespect intended.

[Saddlemomma]

 

In this thread alone, evolution has been misrepresented as - significantly different than adaptation, and that it hasn't been scientifically proven; and that evolution is a theory not a fact.

 

Here is where I disagree.  According the the link you provided (which site I've referenced before myself) evolution claims that: "Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales."  To put it in simpler terms, this is Darwinian Evolution - that one kind changed into a different kind, ex: fish to humans.  To state it in scientific terms: macroevolution: "Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life."

In reality, evolution is a fact. It is a scientific theory that explains an observable phenomenon, namely the biodiversity we see in the natural world. This biodiversity is understood through the process of adaptation, which is explained by the theory of evolution.

 

Microevolution is a fact and based on solid evidence, such as the Galapagos finches.  However, there is absolutely no provable scientific evidence of macroevolution: "It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read."...."Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened."

The scientific method cannot prove something 100% simply because we do not, and can never have, all the information. There may well be information that contradicts what we assume to be true, but with regards to the theory of evolution, that has not happened. In actuality, all the information we have gathered over the years confirms the theory of evolution. That's not to say there may be some discovery in 200 (maybe 20!) years that proverbially blows this theory out of the water and explains biodiversity of the earth much more accurately, but there's no reason to assume that. We can be confident the theory of evolution is an accurate representative of reality.

 

The above paragraph seems to be a fallacy simply because you are stating emphatically that evolution is a fact, then state that the scientific method, which is the holy grail to evolutionists and the scientific elite, cannot prove something 100%, and we can never know all the information.  The statement, therefore, that evolution is a fact rather than a theory, would seem to me to ultimately rely on faith.  Hence the reason it is still a theory rather than a law.  As we have seen, many scientific theories have been proven false when, of course, enough time has elapsed.

For experiments about evolution, I would suggest going to resources that explain evolution. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01 is a good place to start with regards to understanding the mechanics of evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ is a good resource for the evidence that supports the theory of evolution. There are, no doubt, better ones available, but these are familiar to me.
 

A Christian scientist should be no more inferior or superior to a secular scientist, but a Christian explanation of the natural world is inferior to a scientific explanation of the natural world because the Christian explanation ultimately relies on faith, whereas the scientific method weeds out personal biases to discover an accurate representation of reality. The examples you share about various scientific theories being wrong is a testament to the strength of the scientific method. These theories were replaced as more information came in. That's how the scientific method works - analyzing information, experimenting to see if the results are consistent, reviewing methodology and conclusions with peers, and modifying the theory as necessary to incorporate new evidence. A Christian scientist can do the same thing, but the difference between Christian and secular explanations of the world have to do with faith, not evidence.

 

Here again you are citing the scientific method, which cannot prove evolution and, as I have shown above, both belief systems rely on faith since the scientific method cannot be employed.  Much of science today is more philosophy than actual science - whether from Christians or secular scientists.  In addition, Christian scientists do employ the same scientific method.  Facts are facts. They cannot be changed.  Only interpretations change or are read differently by both sides - philosophical differences.

But we can! Perhaps you think this theory was created in the span of a couple months, or a couple years. In reality, this theory is the culmination of generations of collection and analysis of objective data. This link will give you a simple timeline of how the theory of evolution was eventually conceived. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evothought.html

 

Actually no.  I don't believe it was created in a couple months or years.
 

Because students don't decide what is real, they learn what is real. Scientists determine what is real based on the evidence. The Christian hypothesis (creation as explained in Genesis, either literally or figuratively) has been replaced because of the evidence. Students of science should no more "decide" what is real than students of math. They should learn what is real.

 

Are you stating that students can't discern reality? Do you believe that we need another fallible human to explain the difference between what is real and what is not to a student?  If that's the case, who was the first teacher and how do we know he/she got it right - because they said so?  Can't we, flawed as we are, discern reality based upon evidence we see or experience ourselves?

 

What specific evidence are you espousing?  As far as I can tell, in Genesis, God created each animal after it's own kind and a tree bears fruit and reproduces after its own kind from the seed of the fruit.  In other words, a cat is a cat and a tree is a tree, many different varieties, sizes, and colors (microevolution) but still a cat and a tree.  Same evidence; so the Bible agrees with microevolution.  However, what the Bible does not say, and what Darwinian evolution cannot and has not demonstrated, observed, proved, or replicated is macroevolution - one kind evolving into a separate, different kind.  Both the Bible and your website agree on this point.

 

Therefore, seeing how the Bible agrees with microevolution and both agree on what is real, based upon evidence, why can't we teach students what is real - that the Bible agrees with microevolution, and there is no way to prove macroevolution.  For this reason alone, both should be taught and let the next generation explore ways to prove or disprove one or the other.  After all, that is the nature of science - to question.

 

 

Because scientific facts are facts, not opinions. An educated society is one that is not ignorant about facts. An educated society is more stable politically.

 

Totally agree.  What we disagree on is the fact that someone who believes in God and the Bible is ignorant and/or uneducated.  I would venture to guess that those scientists who believe in God and were educated in the same universities and received the same credentials as secular scientists are not ignorant nor uneducated, but I'm pretty sure they would be insulted if you stated they are so simply because you hold a different opinion of the facts and assume you are correct.
 

Ignorance isn't an insult, it's a matter of not knowing. Naivete is a matter of opinion, as is being an imbecile, which ought not be addressed in a classroom anyway. But to maintain that a student is ignorant, and then proceed to teach that student facts, is not a bad thing. It's how education works.
 

I totally understand. :)

 

[Orthodox6]

  But when they discount it as in any way shape or form "just a theory", I know that I am not talking to someone with a deep understanding of the scientific method.  

 

This is a good observation because it highlights one problem of written (especially over the Internet) communication.  There is an enormous difference between

 

[ A ] "Oh, it's just a theory" . . . [spoken with eyes rolling to convey dismissal of the topic as if it were unimportant]

 

and

 

[ B ] "It is just a theory."  [with intended meaning that the proposal is a theory; no more, and no less, than a straightforward theory]

 

My usage was [ B ]. 

 

It may make no difference by this point in the fray; however, I think it important to note.

 

As for my knowledge base, I suppose a degree from 1977 is "old."  It was, however, a degree in the history of science, with additional coursework in science/technical writing.  Upper division coursework in sciences was included.  (not a religious school, but a "top ten" university)  I feel goaded into saying this much, though it should be unnecessary to defend my education.    

[LucyStoner]

Orthodox6, Usage B still seems to miss the point. A scientific theory is not a "proposal". A scientific theory is a model that is consistent with data and facts and is generally accepted. It is not just a hypothesis, which is more similar to the lay usage of theory. Which is how some on this thread, including you, seem to be using the word.

[Orthodox6]

Orthodox6, Usage B still seems to miss the point. A scientific theory is not a "proposal". A scientific theory is a model that is consistent with data and facts and is generally accepted. It is not just a hypothesis, which is more similar to the lay usage of theory. Which is how some on this thread, including you, seem to be using the word.

 

Again, I understand what you say.  There are, however, only so many words in everyday language used by people who are writing posts, rather than crafting academic articles for publication.  I think this particular point [of language which I use] is being elevated higher than it merits.  I'm bemused by the relentlessness.  I would like to shake hands in friendly fashion and set this aside. 

[Mergath]

 

What specific evidence are you espousing?  As far as I can tell, in Genesis, God created each animal after it's own kind and a tree bears fruit and reproduces after its own kind from the seed of the fruit.  In other words, a cat is a cat and a tree is a tree, many different varieties, sizes, and colors (microevolution) but still a cat and a tree.  Same evidence; so the Bible agrees with microevolution.  However, what the Bible does not say, and what Darwinian evolution cannot and has not demonstrated, observed, proved, or replicated is macroevolution - one kind evolving into a separate, different kind.  Both the Bible and your website agree on this point.

 

Therefore, seeing how the Bible agrees with microevolution and both agree on what is real, based upon evidence, why can't we teach students what is real - that the Bible agrees with microevolution, and there is no way to prove macroevolution.  For this reason alone, both should be taught and let the next generation explore ways to prove or disprove one or the other.  After all, that is the nature of science - to question.

 

 

If this is true, I'd love to hear your theories on why God created whales with vestigial leg bones, or why a certain percentage of human DNA comes directly from viruses.  Those seem like pretty big oopses if humans have always been humans and whales have always been whales, and always will be.

[LucyStoner]

This particular point of vernacular is at the crux of widespread myth and misinformation about science in general. It is far from petty to use science terms as they are used in science, by scientists. This is not high level or esoteric stuff- the scientific method and the definition of hypothesis and theory is taught in 1st grade around here.

[Aelwydd]

DH and I are looking for a new job (*sob*) as his project was cut in the state where we're at. We love it here.

We're looking all over the US and in Europe as well as Australia and New Zealand (husband is forester/ecologist/wildlife biologist).

 

We have a few states we're not even considering though, and Texas is numero uno.

 

And I'm sure Texas would just as soon I didn't move there anyway. :)

 

I'm a bit put out that you're not moving here.  I do understand, though.  We're not staying around much longer ourselves. ;)

 

All this talk about presenting unsubstantiated belief alongside empirical evidence has left me somewhat bemused.  Today, it's about presenting two views alongside in a science classroom.  At some point, I fear it'll be dinosaur bones in one exhibit at a science museum, and animatronic people riding tame velociraptors next to it.

 

Speaking of which--I spent yesterday with ds and my sister at a local science museum, while the rallies were taking place in Austin over science text books.  We built and programmed robots, and also performed a lab where we dissected a fruit fly larvae, and examined its DNA under a microscope.

 

I pity the kids in many of our public schools these days.

[Orthodox6]

This particular point of vernacular is at the crux of widespread myth and misinformation about science in general. It is far from petty to use science terms as they are used in science, by scientists. This is not high level or esoteric stuff- the scientific method and the definition of hypothesis and theory is taught in 1st grade around here.

 

No disagreement with you on this, although your remarks show a singular blindness to what I state openly.

[LucyStoner]

No disagreement with you on this, although your remarks show a singular blindness to what I state openly.

Where's the friendly handshake?

 

Someone can disagree with you without being blind, singularly or otherwise.

[*Lulu*]

All this talk about presenting unsubstantiated belief alongside empirical evidence has left me somewhat bemused. Today, it's about presenting two views alongside in a science classroom. At some point, I fear it'll be dinosaur bones in one exhibit at a science museum, and animatronic people riding tame velociraptors next to it.

 

>snip<

Seems to me there is already a museum of sorts that does this.......

 

up Kentucky way somewhere......

[Free]

As far as I can tell, in Genesis, God created each animal after it's own kind and a tree bears fruit and reproduces after its own kind from the seed of the fruit.  In other words, a cat is a cat and a tree is a tree, many different varieties, sizes, and colors (microevolution) but still a cat and a tree.  Same evidence; so the Bible agrees with microevolution.  However, what the Bible does not say, and what Darwinian evolution cannot and has not demonstrated, observed, proved, or replicated is macroevolution - one kind evolving into a separate, different kind.  Both the Bible and your website agree on this point.

 

The Bible agrees with microevolution? You mean the Bible says that lions and tigers evolved from a common ancestor (like Ken Ham proposes) - which is macroevolution not micro and which is also a feat impossible for evolutionary processes to achieve in 6000 years by the way.

 

Creationists sounded more reasonable, I think, when they rejected all of evolution. But they could not continue to do so what with increasing evidence of observed speciation events (which is also macroevolution, not micro). Plus they needed to make the ark story more plausible. So they keep adding all this extra biblical interpretations into Genesis - zebras and horses evolved from a common ancestor in a mere 6000 years, there were baby animals including baby dinosaurs in the ark, animals were vegetarian before the fall, T.rex had its massive teeth to shred watermelons, there were no parasites before the fall (I wonder how tapeworms and roundworms completed their complex lifecycles) and on and on and on. All of this without a shred of evidence.

 

Sure, evolution and creation are comparable theories :rolleyes: and should be taught in the science class.

 

 

[albeto.]

In this thread alone, evolution has been misrepresented as - significantly different than adaptation, and that it hasn't been scientifically proven; and that evolution is a theory not a fact.

 

Here is where I disagree.  According the the link you provided (which site I've referenced before myself) evolution claims that: "Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales."  To put it in simpler terms, this is Darwinian Evolution - that one kind changed into a different kind, ex: fish to humans.  To state it in scientific terms: macroevolution: "Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life."

 

In reality, evolution is a fact. It is a scientific theory that explains an observable phenomenon, namely the biodiversity we see in the natural world. This biodiversity is understood through the process of adaptation, which is explained by the theory of evolution.

 

Microevolution is a fact and based on solid evidence, such as the Galapagos finches.  However, there is absolutely no provable scientific evidence of macroevolution: "It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read."...."Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened."

 

The scientific method cannot prove something 100% simply because we do not, and can never have, all the information. There may well be information that contradicts what we assume to be true, but with regards to the theory of evolution, that has not happened. In actuality, all the information we have gathered over the years confirms the theory of evolution. That's not to say there may be some discovery in 200 (maybe 20!) years that proverbially blows this theory out of the water and explains biodiversity of the earth much more accurately, but there's no reason to assume that. We can be confident the theory of evolution is an accurate representative of reality.

 

The above paragraph seems to be a fallacy simply because you are stating emphatically that evolution is a fact, then state that the scientific method, which is the holy grail to evolutionists and the scientific elite, cannot prove something 100%, and we can never know all the information.  The statement, therefore, that evolution is a fact rather than a theory, would seem to me to ultimately rely on faith.  Hence the reason it is still a theory rather than a law.  As we have seen, many scientific theories have been proven false when, of course, enough time has elapsed.

 

For experiments about evolution, I would suggest going to resources that explain evolution. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01 is a good place to start with regards to understanding the mechanics of evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ is a good resource for the evidence that supports the theory of evolution. There are, no doubt, better ones available, but these are familiar to me.

 

 

A Christian scientist should be no more inferior or superior to a secular scientist, but a Christian explanation of the natural world is inferior to a scientific explanation of the natural world because the Christian explanation ultimately relies on faith, whereas the scientific method weeds out personal biases to discover an accurate representation of reality. The examples you share about various scientific theories being wrong is a testament to the strength of the scientific method. These theories were replaced as more information came in. That's how the scientific method works - analyzing information, experimenting to see if the results are consistent, reviewing methodology and conclusions with peers, and modifying the theory as necessary to incorporate new evidence. A Christian scientist can do the same thing, but the difference between Christian and secular explanations of the world have to do with faith, not evidence.

 

Here again you are citing the scientific method, which cannot prove evolution and, as I have shown above, both belief systems rely on faith since the scientific method cannot be employed.  Much of science today is more philosophy than actual science - whether from Christians or secular scientists.  In addition, Christian scientists do employ the same scientific method.  Facts are facts. They cannot be changed.  Only interpretations change or are read differently by both sides - philosophical differences.

 

But we can! Perhaps you think this theory was created in the span of a couple months, or a couple years. In reality, this theory is the culmination of generations of collection and analysis of objective data. This link will give you a simple timeline of how the theory of evolution was eventually conceived. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evothought.html

 

Actually no.  I don't believe it was created in a couple months or years.

 

Because students don't decide what is real, they learn what is real. Scientists determine what is real based on the evidence. The Christian hypothesis (creation as explained in Genesis, either literally or figuratively) has been replaced because of the evidence. Students of science should no more "decide" what is real than students of math. They should learn what is real.

 

Are you stating that students can't discern reality? Do you believe that we need another fallible human to explain the difference between what is real and what is not to a student?  If that's the case, who was the first teacher and how do we know he/she got it right - because they said so?  Can't we, flawed as we are, discern reality based upon evidence we see or experience ourselves?

 

What specific evidence are you espousing?  As far as I can tell, in Genesis, God created each animal after it's own kind and a tree bears fruit and reproduces after its own kind from the seed of the fruit.  In other words, a cat is a cat and a tree is a tree, many different varieties, sizes, and colors (microevolution) but still a cat and a tree.  Same evidence; so the Bible agrees with microevolution.  However, what the Bible does not say, and what Darwinian evolution cannot and has not demonstrated, observed, proved, or replicated is macroevolution - one kind evolving into a separate, different kind.  Both the Bible and your website agree on this point.

 

Therefore, seeing how the Bible agrees with microevolution and both agree on what is real, based upon evidence, why can't we teach students what is real - that the Bible agrees with microevolution, and there is no way to prove macroevolution.  For this reason alone, both should be taught and let the next generation explore ways to prove or disprove one or the other.  After all, that is the nature of science - to question.

 

 

 

Because scientific facts are facts, not opinions. An educated society is one that is not ignorant about facts. An educated society is more stable politically.

 

Totally agree.  What we disagree on is the fact that someone who believes in God and the Bible is ignorant and/or uneducated.  I would venture to guess that those scientists who believe in God and were educated in the same universities and received the same credentials as secular scientists are not ignorant nor uneducated, but I'm pretty sure they would be insulted if you stated they are so simply because you hold a different opinion of the facts and assume you are correct.

 

 

Ignorance isn't an insult, it's a matter of not knowing. Naivete is a matter of opinion, as is being an imbecile, which ought not be addressed in a classroom anyway. But to maintain that a student is ignorant, and then proceed to teach that student facts, is not a bad thing. It's how education works.

 

 

I totally understand. :)

 

I am so sorry, Saddlemomma, but with all the colors and breaks, I just don't know how to read this. I don't know what parts are quotes. Are you quoting only me? Are you quoting other sites? I just don't know how to respond to this. If you can learn how to break up the quote feature (press the little light-switch looking thing on the upper left hand side of the box when you edit, then use the brackets [ quote ] and [/ quote ], without the spaces) to quote me, then I can understand what you're asking. As it is, I'm afraid I just don't have the reserves to take the time to try and sort it out for you. I'd really like to respond, though, so I'll keep checking back to see if this has been edited. I hope you understand.   

 

:blushing:

[Orthodox6]

Lucy, my cordial handshake remains right where it was when you ignored it.

[albeto.]

This is a good observation because it highlights one problem of written (especially over the Internet) communication.  There is an enormous difference between

 

[ A ] "Oh, it's just a theory" . . . [spoken with eyes rolling to convey dismissal of the topic as if it were unimportant]

 

and

 

[ B ] "It is just a theory."  [with intended meaning that the proposal is a theory; no more, and no less, than a straightforward theory]

 

My usage was [ B ]. 

 

It may make no difference by this point in the fray; however, I think it important to note.

 

As for my knowledge base, I suppose a degree from 1977 is "old."  It was, however, a degree in the history of science, with additional coursework in science/technical writing.  Upper division coursework in sciences was included.  (not a religious school, but a "top ten" university)  I feel goaded into saying this much, though it should be unnecessary to defend my education.    

 

One's tone shouldn't make a difference in the merits of one's claim.  Whether you were feeling condescending (I didn't think you were), or serious, the concept that "evolution is just a theory" does reveal a lack of understanding nevertheless. Your education is of no importance either because the theory of evolution is what it is, regardless of who talks about it. However, hearing the phrase "just a theory" is kind of a heads-up to the fact that one has been misled, and misunderstands what the theory of evolution actually is, and how the scientific method works, ultimately.

[mommymilkies]

What's scary is that there is a vocal segment of the Mercola/Natural News/anti-vaccination crowd that simply does not accept the Germ Theory of Disease.

What?  They must be a minority.  I admit I don't read Mercola or Natural News, but I've been part of the anti-vax crowd for a loooooooong time, and I'm a former scientist married to a chemist and we certainly believe in the Germ Theory of Disease.  I have never heard anyone in the anti-vax side say otherwise.  I'm sure there are religious folk out there who do not vax for different reasons than me and my "crowd", but I certainly have never heard this one!

[elfgivas]

I 100% agree. Just 6 mos ago, I was in the 'maybe but unlikely' camp when it came to evolution. There was SO MUCH info (so I thought) out there to "prove" why evolution couldn't be. The problem was that I was only reading the naysayers. I thought I understood evolution. I was so wrong. Thanks to the wonderful folks here, I decided to read the other side. I read On the Origin of Species, Why Evolution is True, and My Inner Fish. The old arguments I used to fall for seem absurd now. Misrepresentation is an awfully nice way to describe what is being done by some anti-evolution groups.

 

oh my goodness Tracy!  it is such a very rare thing for someone to do what you have done!  Bravo!!  the deep desire to do research and learn new things is one of the treasures homeschooling gives us.

 

here's a link to a free movie on line which is one of my favourites of all time

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

 

and Ken Millar, biologist and practicing Christian, has just about the best explanation for just how much weight a "scientific theory" carries that i've ever heard, which he gives in this film.  a theory is at the pinnacle of scientific surity, which is never absolutely certain, because there is always more to learn.... but it is something that people have tried again and again to disprove, and which remains the explanation that best suits everything we think we know.  (a previous poster mentioned the theory of gravity which carries the same weight and importance as the electromagnetic theory and the theory of evolution.... ) 

 

blessings,

ann