Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools

[Galapagos]

This was certainly a surprise;

"The Church of England is to apologise to Charles Darwin for its initial rejection of his theories, nearly 150 years after he published his most famous work."

 

Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution - Telegraph

Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution

1:06AM BST 14 Sep 2008

The Church of England will concede in a statement that it was over-defensive and over-emotional in dismissing Darwin's ideas. It will call "anti-evolutionary fervour" an "indictment" on the Church".

[...]

The apology, which has been written by the Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, the Church's director of mission and public affairs, says that Christians, in their response to Darwin's theory of natural selection, repeated the mistakes they made in doubting Galileo's astronomy in the 17th century.

 

They actually decided not to do it a couple days later:

Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican | Science | Reuters

Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican

Tue Sep 16, 2008 4:07pm EDT

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago.

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican's culture minister, was speaking at the announcement of a Rome conference of scientists, theologians and philosophers to be held next March marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's "The Origin of Species".

[...]

Earlier this week a leading Anglican churchman, Rev. Malcolm Brown, said the Church of England owed Darwin an apology for the way his ideas were received by Anglicans in Britain.

[...]

But Ravasi said the Vatican had no intention of apologizing for earlier negative views.

 

"Maybe we should abandon the idea of issuing apologies as if history was a court eternally in session," he said, adding that Darwin's theories were "never condemned by the Catholic Church nor was his book ever banned".

[Guest Phoenix_Enflame]

Thank you. I was unaware that the apology was never brought to fruition.

[CraigD]

Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution - Telegraph

...

They actually decided not to do it a couple days later:

Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican | Science | Reuters

I believe Galopagos is confusing Christian churches. The Church of England, AKA the Anglican Church, is a different organization that the Roman Catholic Church, which owns and is lead from the Vatican.

 

The 9/14/08 Telegraph.co.uk article states that the following will appear on a Church of England website:

Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practise (sic) the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends."

and, true to promise, that text appears verbatim (except for a spelling correction) at Good religion needs good science | Church of England. As the Catholic Church’s Gianfranco Ravasi states, that church had little involvement in early “Origin of Species” debates, so reasonable can claim to owe no apologies on the matter.

 

The whole matter of 21st century clerics apologizing to long-dead 19th century naturalists is, I think, a bit of commemorative theatrics, referring back perhaps to the famous 1860 Huxley-Wilberforce debate, in which Anglican bishop Samuel Wilberforce, in the course of the heated debate, pelted his his opponent, Thomas Huxley, with such gems as asking Huxley if he was “descended from a monkey” by his mother or father (to which Huxley retorted that he’d not be ashamed to have a monkey in his family, but would to be related to Wilberforce). Considering that most (though not all, notably not Huxley) 19th century English scientists and intellectuals were technically Anglican Clergy, it’s little wonder that many early critics of Darwin’s theory were Anglicans.

 

Wilberforce’s famous vitriol aside, Darwin personally appears to have been in pretty good graces with the Church of England, as he was never excommunicated (despite his professed agnosticism) and was given a state burial in its most famous Churches, Westminster Abbey, near the tomb of Isaac Newton. In the four and two centuries since Copernicus and Galileo, the Anglican and Catholic churches had become much more science-friendly.

[C1ay]

Presenting all types of religions, not just Christianity, would broaden the minds of students. Of course, it would need to be objective.We cannot simply hide Creationism under the rug, when so many people believe it to be true.

 

Both evolution and creationism need to be learned and it is up to the student to determine the legitamacy. I would not suppress it, or any belief system's fundamentals.The world is a vast place with many ideas and concepts that are worthy of investigating, if only for the reason of understanding humanity and furthering the human cause

 

I tend very much to agree with Dan Dennett's advocation that religion, all religion, be taught in schools, so we can understand its nature as a natural phenomenon. It is a part of most of the world's cultures and I believe there would be a lot less intolerance of others if everyone understood the beliefs of others and why they believed as they do. For these reasons I believe it is an authentic topic of philosophy and should be covered in such curriculum.

 

It is not a valid topic for biology class and neither is creationism. It doesn't matter if everyone on Earth believed creationism to be true, that would not actually make it true. The fact is that there is no physical, measurable, testable, verifiable scientific evidence to support creationism as anything more than a philosophical belief. It does not meet the scientific requirements to merit covereage in a physical science class such as biology.

 

In the end we must realize that evolution and creationism are really ideals about two totally different things and should not be presented as competing theories at all. One is about how life changes and adapts over time leading to new biological variations based on natural selection. It is not about the origin of life at all while the later is only a speculation on how life began, a philosophical conjecture. Both have a place in the curriculum but not as competing memes in the same classroom.

[Pyrotex]

:) rhetoric such a sweet thing to savour....... I am not seeing where you and I are disagreeing, my friend:shrug:

Woopsies!!! :phones:

 

My bad. I did not read the posts following the one I responded to. I'll go out back and crawl under a rock now. I won't starve. There's plenty of grubworms out there. [sniff]

Pyro the Penitent

[HydrogenBond]

Evolutionary theory does a good job correlating the data. It is valid science. But it is a blend of logic and fuzzy dice. In the mind of the layman, one can see the logic of selective advantage but there is still this gray area between the discontinuities. We have developed some powerful math to deal with these gray areas.

 

Here is an analogy. Each day the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. We have the daylight sun down to a science But the night sun within the discontinuities is still in the dark. We have the day sun fully correlated and don't even need the night sun. We fill this in with statistics instead of also adding additional logic. So we have this bright area for the mind and also this fuzzy area for the mind.

 

This night sun affect, due to the uncertainty, creates an emotional reaction that overlays the objectivity of the solid science of the day sun. That is the vulnerability that religion can smell. If science allows itself to have a fuzzy area, then why can't someone else?

 

The average person, who is not an expert, will sense this fuzzy area. If you don't fully understand how statistics deals with this, there is a gap in your ability to reason. It almost looks like it is half made up. Those fuzzy areas are like in a gambling casino where sometimes you win and sometime you lose. Not everyone is into gambling with evolution. Science is right worrying about the layman being influenced by emotion because of those fuzzy areas it creates in the mind.

 

I am not a creationist, but I often try to fill in the fuzzy areas with an attempt at logic, but this hits an emotional wall since statistical fuzzy is almost dogma. My opinion is evolution is a work in progress with math allowing us to fill in the fuzzy areas. Once we know the night sun, we may need to change things somewhat.

[REASON]

here is an analogy.....

 

:phones:

[Pyrotex]

...there is still this gray area between the discontinuities....the night sun within the discontinuities is still in the dark...this fuzzy area for the mind....since statistical fuzzy is almost dogma. ...Once we know the night sun, we may need to change things somewhat.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

 

HB, I read your post twice.

Then I read it a third time very, very slowly.

 

I cannot make any sense of it.

I cannot determine what point you are trying to make.

 

Please explain, without using the "night sun"/"fuzzy" metaphor.

[Galapagos]

I believe Galopagos is confusing Christian churches. The Church of England, AKA the Anglican Church, is a different organization that the Roman Catholic Church, which owns and is lead from the Vatican......

Doh! :confused: Good catch CraigD! My mistake.

 

Evolutionary theory does a good job correlating the data. It is valid science. But it is a blend of logic and fuzzy dice. In the mind of the layman, one can see the logic of selective advantage but there is still this gray area between the discontinuities. We have developed some powerful math to deal with these gray areas.

 

Could you be more specific in your criticism of evolutionary theory(are you talking about population genetics? sampling error? game theoretic models?)? I'm not sure I understand your analogy either..

[C1ay]

I understand your analogy either..

 

That makes 4 of us...

[goku]

Sorry 'bout any typos. This is really sad. Gallup is very trustworthy in their polls. I'm looking for a way to not believe this and I'm drawing a blank.

 

Very sad.

 

-modest

 

the greatest nation the world has ever seen, and half the people believe in God. just think about that. very strong evidence.

 

i wonder how much greater america could be if everyone believed?

[Essay]

:confused: But didn't Galileo get an apology???

===

 

It worries me deeply that I felt HB's post was easily understandable;

:confused: you just have to read it fast.

 

The key point is hinted at:

...due to the uncertainty, creates an emotional reaction that overlays the objectivity....

If science allows itself to have a fuzzy area, then why can't someone else?

 

The average person, who is not an expert, will sense this fuzzy area. If you don't fully understand how statistics deals with this, there is a gap in your ability to reason.

It almost looks like it is half made up.

Science is right worrying about the layman being influenced by emotion....

"...there is a gap in your ability to reason."

This is not actually true, but people often assume it is; that they can't follow an argument through, if certain flags are raised--such as charts, graphs, equations, or often even just numbers (or stats), or maybe even just certain "fancy" or otherwise unfamiliar words.

 

Well, I'm getting a bit condescending here, but many folks just assume they can't do something, and "glaze over."

 

Some of those people, I suspect, also assume that nobody else could really understand things much more than do they themselves.

 

Some percentage of folks who live their entire lives within a familiar horizon, don't realize that there are others on the other side of the globe--measuring the sun at "nighttime," confirming the fuzzy part.

 

"Once we know the night sun, we may need to change things somewhat." -HB

 

The problem is that people rely on "sensing," but not tryng their "ability to reason," because "it almost looks like it is ...made up," and then they are "influenced by emotion."

...hey, I think we do "know the night sun" better and better these days...

...and so we do "change things somewhat."

===

 

C'mon, whip that brain into shape!

 

Just because it's hard, doesn't mean it's inscrutable.

Just because it is inscrutable, or "it almost looks like it is half made up," doesn't mean that it is half made up.

 

Rather than giving up, or digging in your heels at every turn....

Learning goes a lot easier if you assume the hard stuff is right, and then later at the end when you want to evaluate the conclusion, go back and question the links in the chain of logic.

 

Don't dismiss something just because it may not be true; first check to see if it is valid.

....Big difference between validity and truth. (as you mentioned)

 

Maybe God created things 6000 years ago and just made things look so much older, and made things work as if they evolve; ...or maybe not.

 

But either way, the sciences based on evolutionary theories work; they are practical, useful, and hence valid...

...even if they are a complete illusion, even if they are not "true."

 

....Like Newton was wrong, and Einstein was right; or Einstein was wrong, and Ed Witten was right; or Witten was wrong and...

...but still valid within their respective realms.===

 

But before I go on preaching....

What is your point HB; that evolution theory shouldn't be taught in schools, because of fuzzy dice?

...or that it should be taught as an example of a theory, which isn't necessarily the truth, but has a high validity?

 

...and remember, it is "The Origin of Species," not "The Origin of Life" that we're talking about here.

I think it's folks confusing the two that leads to a lot of misunderstanding.

 

But, HB, you are right:

"Science is right worrying about the layman being influenced by emotion...."

 

And I feel some accomodation should be made. The demand for total reason ...is unreasonable.

Scientist run the risk of sounding self-righteous.

...maybe that's too strong, but reason has it's limits....

...as Stuart Kauffmann suggests in Beyond Reductionism:

Edge: BEYOND REDUCTIONISM: REINVENTING THE SACRED By Stuart A. Kauffman

This emerging view finds a natural scientific place for value and ethics, and places us as co-creators of the enormous web of emerging complexity that is the evolving biosphere and human economics and culture.

~ :confused:

 

...other Favorite Quote of the Day, now running thru my head:

Fuzzy dice,

...and bongos in the back.

My ship of love,

...is ready to attack.

:confused:

[Turtle]

the greatest nation the world has ever seen, and half the people believe in God. just think about that. very strong evidence.

 

i wonder how much greater america could be if everyone believed?

 

America wouldn't even 'be', if everyone believed in your misunderstaken Christian God. :confused: Until the Wright brothers flew, 'everyone' knew that if God meant people to fly they would have wings. Think about that. :confused:

 

AMERICAN DEISTS

 

The reliance on reason that Deism demands enabled those who used it at the time of the American Revolution to overcome the Biblical prohibition against rebellion in political and governmental matters. This prohibition is found in Romans 13:1-2 which reads, "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

 

One of those who employed Deistic principles was Benjamin Franklin. As a young man in Philadelphia he read some Christian books that were written in opposition to Deism. Franklin wrote in his autobiography: "Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."

Deist Roots of America

 

Our science education is the US is dropping behind the world by all recent indications, and this religious dogma distraction in our education system is apalling. :confused: U.S. Teens Trail Peers Around World on Math-Science Test - washingtonpost.com

[C1ay]

the greatest nation the world has ever seen, and half the people believe in God. just think about that. very strong evidence.

 

That's not evidence at all. Are you saying that if everyone in the whole world believed there was a Lazyboy recliner orbiting Neptune that it would be true? Belief [math]\tiny \neq[/math] Truth...

[pamela]

Goku, do you just type off the cuff? Think about what you are saying here...evidence of what?

There is evidence that the masses blindly believe that which they choose not to understand. Let me step off the sides lines for a moment and on to your court. Okay lets say God made you, all of you, including your brain, mind and intelligence. Would God expect you to utilize these gifts? Or would he want you to be a robot or machine simply going through the daily motions?

Intelligence and common sense would tell you that creationism is not valid. Do you think that God thinks on your level? or do you suppose that his thoughts are above yours and beyond your comprehension? Do not create a god of your understanding, it will be your demise.

Back on the side lines, America would certainly be a different place, if the sheeple took the time to use their intelligence...

[Turtle]

Here's an interesting twist to teach in schools, on the evolution of belief. :D :) ;)

 

Patternicity: Finding Meaningful Patterns in Meaningless Noise: Scientific American

...In a September paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, “The Evolution of Superstitious and Superstition-like Behaviour,” Harvard University biologist Kevin R. Foster and University of Helsinki biologist Hanna Kokko test my theory through evolutionary modeling and demonstrate that whenever the cost of believing a false pattern is real is less than the cost of not believing a real pattern, natural selection will favor patternicity. They begin with the formula pb > c, where a belief may be held when the cost © of doing so is less than the probability (p) of the benefit (B). For example, believing that the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator when it is only the wind does not cost much, but believing that a dangerous predator is the wind may cost an animal its life.

 

The problem is that we are very poor at estimating such probabilities, so the cost of believing that the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator when it is just the wind is relatively low compared with the opposite. Thus, there would have been a beneficial selection for believing that most patterns are real.

...

From here, the evolutionary rationale for superstition is clear: natural selection will favour strategies that make many incorrect causal associations in order to establish those that are essential for survival and reproduction.”

[goku]

America wouldn't even 'be', if everyone believed in your misunderstaken Christian God. ;) Until the Wright brothers flew, 'everyone' knew that if God meant people to fly they would have wings. Think about that.

 

Our science education is the US is dropping behind the world by all recent indications, and this religious dogma distraction in our education system is apalling. :) U.S. Teens Trail Peers Around World on Math-Science Test - washingtonpost.com

 

america was created by crazy christian maniacs like myself.

 

and education is falling behind because of the lack of God.

you see, God is knowledge, wisdom, logic.......

why do evolutionists care? how can they?

evolution means nothing. nothing matters, there is no right or wrong, there is no caring.

a caring, moral, law bidding evolutionist is a hippocrit.

why would anyone want to better themselves?

 

my son does well in school, and he knows there is no such thing as evolution, and i didn't even have to teach him that.

perhaps evolutionists are genitically infeiror. evolutionarilly speaking of course B)