Evolution Again.

[flukec]

The History Channel is taking a break from it's usual schedule of motorcycle and gambling shows to bring you Ape To Man. I thought some of you might want to check it out, because of the recent evolution discussions on this board. It premieres this Sunday night at 9/8 C.

Link: http://www.historychannel.com/apetoman/

Luke

[HellboyOne]

Hoping to catch this. With Bush supporting creationism in schools and Frist supporting stem cell research, I'm all confused about the Republican party this week...

[Kzanth]

I thought Bush was supporting 'Intelligent Design' and not specifically 'Creationism'.

[Commander Obvious]

I'm not really sure which one is which anymore. I thought that Intelligent Design implied creation or an act of a creator, or simply a creative act. Of course, Creationism doesn't necessarily imply "intelligent design" if you're of the opinion that the design is unintelligent (see Darwin Awards for notable examples).

Personally, I think science should be objective and if anybody wants to teach something, it has to be put in objective context. I'm not against teaching intelligent design so long as it is in context, nor am I against teaching evolution. These topics should be taught from an INQUIRY perspective since that is the state of our current knowledge on the subject as a race self-named "human". We're still looking into it. Some things make sense but most don't.

Either way, I'm so jaded and bitter at my young age that I can't imagine any national politico taking a stand on this issue for one side or another for any reason other than demographic gerrymandering. Slice up your constituency and convince them that even CONSIDERING the other guy's platform is heresy at best.

By the way, I am a recent graduate of the Master's in Education program but am not interested in teaching public high school for the simple fact that I don't want to be a direct tool of whichever political group is in power at the time. I would rather be allowed to teach my students to ask questions well than pretend to have all the answers nicely packaged for them in advance.

(I'm currently a software and web-page tester so it is of ironic happenstance that I clicked the SpellCheck button just to see what happened... ...it seems to think that the contraction "I'm" is not correct. That's a B- for that feature in my gradebook. )

[Kzanth]

Nice use of the word 'gerrymandering', though. Extra credit for that.

[flukec]

Personally, I think science should be objective and if anybody wants to teach something, it has to be put in objective context. I'm not against teaching intelligent design so long as it is in context, nor am I against teaching evolution. These topics should be taught from an INQUIRY perspective since that is the state of our current knowledge on the subject as a race self-named "human". We're still looking into it. Some things make sense but most don't.

Once a school of thought has climbed to the level of "theoryhood", it is generally accepted as "true" by the majority of the scientific world.....or at least as "true" as things get, since there are no "absolute truths" in science. The word "theory" doesn't just mean "what some person thinks", though...the word is generally used in science to mean a powerful, rigorous framework that is based on a large body of evidence, has made many predictions that have been verified, and has withstood vigorous and skeptical examination. The idea of "intelligent design" does not hold up to the criteria needed to become a "scientific theory", and should therefore not be taught in science classes. Evolution is a "theory" in the same sense as Newton's "theory" of gravity and Einstein's "theory" of relativity. I don't see too many people asking for those theories to be put into "objective context"....but then, they don't blatantly contradict the bible, do they?

Luke

[Commander Obvious]

You'd think with that word having been around for so long that people with the last name of Mander, Mande, etc would all stop naming their kids Jerry, Gerald, Geri, etc. I wound up using works by a certain Gerry Mander in the literature review for my research project to get that Master's degree. I'm about THIS far away from changing my last name to Uster just so I can name my kid "Phillip".

[Commander Obvious]

I wouldn't throw around the word "theory" in reference to broad scientific thought with the heft of "truth" though. Honest scientists will still have to objectively state what is theory and what is not. For example, they call it the Theory of Relativity because there is much about it that isn't known. However, no scientist in his right mind calls Entropy a theory. Entropy is probably equally less understood but there are fewer points of contention to work out.

I also get nervous around the use of the term "scientists believe" as if there were unanimity. I've worked with "scientists" for the last 7 years of my life in one way or another. I'm friends with many doctorate-degree holders and consider myself on intellectual par with my own friends (a PhD is truly the degree for the most persistent not necessarily the brightest).

The other thing is that Evolution also has nothing to do with origins directly as it only implies origins of life as we know it. Cosmology is apart from biology and cares nothing for evolution but still has much to say about origins.

In the end, it kinda comes down to semantics. Science cannot operate without suppositions about the world and how it works. One would not call "birth" a theory, or "pain" a theory but these topics are treated in depth with much research (though the latter is less understood and more frequently experienced). If nothing could be proven, then it wouldn't make sense that any scientific body would have a problem with teaching creation outright. It is a double-standard and hallmark of modern orthodox intellectualism that the only absolute in the universe is that everything is relative (i.e. nothing can constitute a "proof" or "truth"). You can see where this completely dissolves into semantics already.

An "origin" of any kind is parametric, referenced, and quantifiable once identified. To teach anything on the topic of an origin means you have to show these parameters. If anyone has a case, let him bring it and have it considered. If during the process of consideration, questions arise that are not immediately answered then call it a theory and let that be the only time you use the word "theory". How many people in high school or younger are prepared to question origins? That is why I think it is important to teach kids how to ask questions well and not just take our word for it all the time.

[Kannard]

We didn't come from chimps, but from orangutangs. At least that was the last thing I heard from a physical anthropologist. I dunno. I think politics is corrupt and it doesn't really matter who is in office. The purpose of government is to keep the masses under it's control. Some can argue the advent of religion also serves this purpose. Only those rich enough have any true influence in the world. I have nothing against government that works, just it seems it doesn't work. Isn't it then we should overthrow it? I think the gist of that thought is even in the consititution, but I drew my way through the civil government class. Science is like the Weatherman. They are right till they are proved wrong then they go awe schucks. It is nothing more then a best guess. Rarely does theory match praticality. Theory is a perfect evironment, practicality is the real world, which is by not the vacuum they like to use to cite why their theory doesn't hold true all the time. Sort of rambly for that I apologize.

[sukeband]

Creationism = "Biblical Literalism"

Inelligent Design = "The complexity of the natural world could not have occurred by chance, only"

[HellboyOne]

Inelligent Design = "The complexity of the natural world could not have occurred by chance, only"

Some people should use the spell checker despite its shortcomings.

Anyway...it's a bit of a semantic argument isn't it? For the most part, the people who support intelligent design started out as creationists looking for a scientific way to argue against evolutionists, didn't they (correct me if I'm wrong)? Ironic since intelligent design doesn't seem to use any science to corroborate it.

[flukec]

It could be argued that the view point of intelligent design is not religious based, because it is just the idea that life must have had a creator of some type (not necessarily a god or the God). However, the truth is that intelligent design is just creationism in camouflage. Intelligent design was just created to pass creationism off as a legitimate science. It's the old bait and switch....dangle out the idea that there is a "designer" who is subject to scientific study, only to hide the real agenda of promoting faith in the Almighty. This wolf in sheep's clothing is a threat to real science.

Luke

[extremophile]

Inelligent Design = "The complexity of the natural world could not have occurred by chance, only"

I'd preferably say that ID = "some biological structures require an intelligent creator", since not being created doesn't equate being solely by chance.

ID movement alleges that we can infer design more specifically in biology, rather than the whole natural world. The latter is anthropic principle, which can be used to sustain that there's a creator of the universe, but at the same time not endorsing ID or any classical creationism.

Other difference between ID and classical creationisms is that many IDers do accept common ancestry, but they say that some biological structures couldn't had evolved, so must have been invented. On the other hand, religious explicit creationists use to state more or less the opposite; natural selection can account for some adaptations, but common ancestry is fake.

But that's not always true, since I use to see many people labeling themselves as ID defensors while they defend something virtually identical to some classical, fixed-species creationism, just letting aside religious arguments.

[extremophile]

Anyway...it's a bit of a semantic argument isn't it? For the most part, the people who support intelligent design started out as creationists looking for a scientific way to argue against evolutionists, didn't they (correct me if I'm wrong)? Ironic since intelligent design doesn't seem to use any science to corroborate it.

They don't really need that to achieve some results, as Paul Krugman said in NYT article, "Design for confusion".

[suryrony]

i kan't beleeve u guis r at it agein.