Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools

[Buffy]

Now we know that all of you have open minds and are willing to explore alternative viewpoints.

 

The movie "Expelled" is obviously an excellent example of one of these alternative viewpoints and speaking from my own, individual, personal viewpoint I encourage *all* of you to seek out information on this film, most especially the web site that is promoting it, which as I understand it, can be found quite easily.

 

Be what you would seem to be -- or, if you'd like it put more simply -- Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise, :)

Buffy

[Biochemist]

....Its actually mostly *not* because of deeply held religious beliefs: that's only a small--and shrinking--minority (sorry folks!). The real problem is a combination of "science isn't cool" and the "no child left behind" emphasis on "the basics" where science is considered as much of a luxury as art or music (ask any teacher or parent with a kid in school right now!).....

 

Ah, Buff. Long time no talk. I have been away from the Forums since late 2006. Great to see you (all) have kept the momentum. I would have said "kept the faith," but I suspect someone in this thread might have regarded that notion as insulting.

 

I would like to mention (as we are picking on the rank-and-file American folks that generally misunderstand science issues) that we in this thread have done a pretty poor job of identifying the "science" topics of dispute.

 

"Evolution" per se includes a number of different hypotheses, many of which are internally inconsistent. The different hypotheses include:

 

1) Gradualism, with the core speciation method being speciation-by-mutation (I am going to ignore genetic drift in this context)

2) Punctuated equilibrium, where the speciation method is unknown, but related to the accelerated speed of speciation (presumably related to expression of recessive alleles) when small cohorts of specific species are sequestered in small groups, and

3) Intelligent Design, where the speciation method is unknown.

 

Yes, ID is a subset of "evolution". Those folks that claim ID equals Creationism don't really understand the terminology of either.

 

The fact that most Americans are not well science-educated is, unfortunately, a microcosm of the fact that most Americans are not well educated. In one survey, less than a third of high-school seniors could correctly sequence the Revolutionary war, the Civil War and WWII.

 

If you query the Biblically conservative folks who are science-educated, a majority of them accept the major elements of evolutionary theory. Among my conservative friends, for example, most accept common descent. The evidence for common descent is extraordinarily strong. In contrast, many conservative folks (including me) have some significant misgivings about speciation-by-mutation, since the evidence is far less compelling. Importantly, I have no spiritual/Biblical preclusion against speciation-by-mutation. I am just naturally a skeptic (as is the Scientific Method) and think that the support for this model is more of a default than a proof case.

 

Further, "Intelligent Design" includes some elements that many science-minded folks accept. There are indeed some biological structures that are difficult to assert as the endpoints of speciation-by-mutation. Some compulsive skeptics (such as me) are troubled by those who automatically accept a reigning theory that poorly explains some observed facts.

 

Some who are emotionally wedded to speciation-by-mutation dismiss any of the credible information in support of Irreducible Complexity. These folks contend that ID is "not science". These folks also tend to automatically refute the evidence in support of Punctuated Equilbrium as an erroneous set of data. Characterizing ID as "not science" is an odd view, since the original authors of Intelligent Design (particularly Michael Behe) regard ID as a subordinate/additive position to other items within evolutionary theory. Further, some elements of ID are readily falsifiable. Ergo, ID can stand as a legitimate hypothesis until refuted.

 

Creationism, also has several sub-flavors (which I will not bore you with). Some of them are remarkably consistent with evolutionary theory.

 

Could someone tell me which item we are debating? Are we debating whether people that are uninformed can effect change on the political process (Really???). Or are we debating the merits and/or internal inconsistencies in evolutionary theory? Or are we surprised that folks that are poorly educated will advocate political solutions consistent with their uninformed biases? I am pretty sure we call that "democracy."

[Biochemist]

..Beware! These are the type of people who are trying to influence the science curriculum in our public schools...

 

Even worse, these folks vote on tax policy.

[REASON]

Even worse, these folks vote on tax policy.

 

:(

 

Well, that ain't so bad if you're wealthy is it? (I'm not wealthy though :()

 

 

 

Welcome back Bio, how was your trip? :shrug:

[Buffy]

Ah, Buff. Long time no talk.

Ditto Mr. Bio! :(

 

These folks contend that ID is "not science". These folks also tend to automatically refute the evidence in support of Punctuated Equilbrium as an erroneous set of data.

Poppycock and ballderdash! ID is not Science and PE is the better model and works just fine given that environment changes are clearly "punctuated" in synchronicity with the fossil record of periods of rapid speciation.

 

But we'll save that for later, dear (as if, like Martha and George we haven't beaten that dead horse into oblivion)....

Some who are emotionally wedded to speciation-by-mutation dismiss any of the credible information in support of Irreducible Complexity.... Further, some elements of ID are readily falsifiable. Ergo, ID can stand as a legitimate hypothesis until refuted.

 

Creationism, also has several sub-flavors (which I will not bore you with). Some of them are remarkably consistent with evolutionary theory.

Excuse me a minute.... Hey, Mr. Thunderbird? Take a look at this one! :)

 

Could someone tell me which item we are debating? Are we debating whether people that are uninformed can effect change on the political process (Really???). Or are we debating the merits and/or internal inconsistencies in evolutionary theory? Or are we surprised that folks that are poorly educated will advocate political solutions consistent with their uninformed biases? I am pretty sure we call that "democracy."

As usual, Bio, its pretty much all of the above.

 

Although on that last point, thank goodness science is based on "survival of the fittest" rather than being a Democracy! :(

 

Now as I said everyone, be sure to find your way to that web site. Its very enlightening.

 

Mistakes can be corrected by those who pay attention to facts but dogmatism will not be corrected by those who are wedded to a vision, :shrug:

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Some who are emotionally wedded to speciation-by-mutation dismiss any of the credible information in support of Irreducible Complexity.

 

First, it's nice to see you around these parts, Biochemist. Your hayday was somewhat before I even joined Hypography, although you were still posting regularly when I did. With that said, I hope you are well, and that you are happy. :shrug:

 

 

Now, to the meat of my post.

 

Can you share a link(s) to support the quote above?

 

I am, admittedly, somewhat reluctant to accept such a statement on faith, as I am considerably biased against the entire concept of irriducible complexity, even emotionally invested against it.

 

However, I'd very much welcome the opportunity to learn where my emotional investment may be misplaced, as I am always open to correction... In other words, I wish to learn more about what credible information "scientists" are publishing in support of the irreducable complexity concept. Where's the beef? :(

 

Cheers. :(

[Biochemist]

... Can you share a link(s) to support the quote above?

 

I am, admittedly, somewhat reluctant to accept such a statement on faith, as I am considerably biased against the entire concept of irriducible complexity, even emotionally invested against it....

 

Thanks, IN.

 

The quote you selected was my assertion that many folks are biased against ID (or IR in this case). Since you hold that bias, I don't think you were asking for support for the notion that some hold that bias (or were you?)

 

Or were you asking for support for ID?

[Biochemist]

...thank goodness science is based on "survival of the fittest" rather than being a Democracy!

 

Amen.

 

Bio

[Biochemist]

Well, that ain't so bad if you're wealthy is it? (I'm not wealthy though :()..

Goodness. We should start a thread on the irrationality of tax policy. Or of the rank-and-file perception of tax policy.

 

But too far off topic for this thread!!

 

Bio

[Biochemist]

..Poppycock and ballderdash! ID is not Science and PE is the better model and works just fine given that environment changes are clearly "punctuated" in synchronicity with the fossil record of periods of rapid speciation....

 

Given our history of detailing the PE arguments in several hundred posts (oh, those romantic old days), I won't re-attack or re-defend the PE position.

 

But I will defend the notion that some elements of ID are falsifiable, ergo ID should count as a valid hypothesis. To my knowledge (someone correct me if I am wrong), Behe (who I believe coined "Irreducible Complexity") never explicitly offered a falsifiable proposition.

 

So, let me.

 

If

1) we can demonstrate any case where a phenotypic feature based on a complex genotype arrives suddenly in a population and yet

2) does not have intermediate expression (via phenotype) that would have selected for the feature,

 

it would argue that

 

1) the feature was not selected (e.g., there was no opportunity for natural selection to have supported serial mutations), and

2) some other undescribed mechanism drove the daughter species

 

 

I think as we sequence more species, we will find parent and daughter species, with few intermediate selectable features

 

This would suggest that daughter species are more dramatic phenotypic variations of the parent (similar to the phenotype of a butterfly being a bit at odds with the phenotype of the caterpillar), and that the transition was not driven by serial mutation.

 

Heck, I will even bet a dollar this is true.

[REASON]

Goodness. We should start a thread on the irrationality of tax policy. Or of the rank-and-file perception of tax policy.

 

But too far off topic for this thread!!

 

Bio

 

Well, without taking it too much further, I was just attempting to be mildly facetious.

 

If I had my druthers, we would switch to some form of consumption tax, such as the Fair Tax. I'm sure that will remain a wish considering a system of taxation like that is far too equitable to find its way to reality in our government.

 

But don't worry, I'm getting your drift Bio. As taxpayers, we all want to feel like we should have the power to affect policy, even in our public schools. And considering the broad spectrum of values and belief systems found in our society, we can either hope that rationality prevails, or we can insist on it.

[InfiniteNow]

Thanks, IN.

 

The quote you selected was my assertion that many folks are biased against ID (or IR in this case). Since you hold that bias, I don't think you were asking for support for the notion that some hold that bias (or were you?)

 

Or were you asking for support for ID?

 

Evidence for this bit, specifically:

 

any of the credible information in support of Irreducible Complexity

 

 

What credible information, exactly?

[CraigD]

In one survey, less than a third of high-school seniors could correctly sequence the Revolutionary war, the Civil War and WWII.

Do you have a reference to this survey, Biochemist?

 

Assuming that the students and the revolutionary and civil wars are the US’s, less than a third seems incredible.

[Biochemist]

...Assuming that the students and the revolutionary and civil wars are the US’s, less than a third seems incredible.

I will look around for it, CD.

 

The survey was even more disappointing that this factoid would indicate. As I recall, less than half could name the current vice president, less than 20% could name the current secretary of defense, treasury or attorney general.

 

And less than a third could identify the correct century of the civil war.

 

Imagine having those folks even define Intelligent Design, much less debate it.

 

Bio

[Biochemist]

Do you have a reference to this survey, Biochemist?

 

I have found a couple, although some of my links are meta-references (i.e., links to authors discussing the survey):

 

Teens losing touch with historical references - USATODAY.com

 

This is a link to a PDF of the recent study:

 

http://commoncore.org/_docs/CCreport_stillatrisk.pdf

 

I think the political motives of many (to use this data to pick on NCLB) are pretty transparent. But the data itself is pretty enlightening.

 

Imagine if we took a survey about whether people "believe" whether elementary particles can move between two points in space without crossing the space in between? Think we would hit double digits?

[Biochemist]

What credible information, exactly?

 

There is quite a bit of credible information. Almost all off it can be "credibly" refuted, but it is only that.

 

Whether or not you weight the credibility of Michael Behe's original arguments as high, medium or low (I would put it at medium), or Dembski's mathematical assessments (I would put these slightly lower), they have credible positions.

 

Keep in mind that many of us have held the initial Punctuated Equilibrium hypotheses (as originally asserted by Gould and Eldredge in 1972) as a pretty interesting view of the same data that everyone else thought supported gradualism. I think that PE is held by most folks as a credible position, although it does not overturn the weight of the argument for mutation-mediated gradualism.

 

I happen to think (not believe, think) that the weight of the concrete arguments directly supporting mutation-driven speciation are weak. Ergo, they are more easily called into question (not necessarily overturned) by credible opposing views.

 

Behe started with simple observational points that some complex structures do not seem to have practical paths for serial mutation to result in a complex endpoint. Credible antagonists have countered that some elements of his complex structures do (in fact) pre-exist in other locales and for other purposes. But the key point is that neither position is proof.

 

As we gene-sequence more genomes, I suspect we are going to find some real surprises. Specifically, I think we are going to find daughter species that are phenotypically very different from parent species, and that some complex phenotypes arise suddenly without intervening selection. I think that is what the fossil record shows.

 

In this context (assuming we accept the sub-hypothesis of common descent, as I do) we do not have a mechanism for speciation. We just know it happens.

 

This would (essentially) put the macro-evolution discussion into a similar bucket where we now hold abiogenesis. Everyone sort of assumes it happened (heck, we are here, aren't we?) but no one has a particularly compelling argument for the mechanism. (I don't happen to think the evidence for aliens putting is here is particularly compelling, by the way).

 

Many folks (including me) have a difficult time accepting the notion that in the roughly 1 billion years between earth formation and the first prokaryote, that life showed up by accident out of the hostile chemical goo. That first little beggar 3.5 billion years ago was remarkably complex and already contained nearly all of the infrastructural machinery to replicate that we still use today in all phyla. Assuming it took 600 or 700 million years for the earth to cool, this leaves 300-400 million years for this little dude to begin to replicate. Pretty significant achievement, given that the replication method that showed up "spontaneously" 3.5 billion year ago is still with us in substantially the same form.

 

Hence we are arguing (with a straight face) that this biogenetic event occurred in a hostile environment 3.5 billion years ago, and yet, it has never occurred since (at least not well enough to create a different sort of life architecture).

 

If we can leave open some of the questions about abiogenesis, we can certainly leave open some of the questions about ID. ID folks are NOT saying "God did it". All they are saying is we cannot assert (based on the fact base) that this was exclusively serial mutation.

 

That, in my opinion, is science.

 

Bio

[InfiniteNow]

Thanks for the reply, but you basically just walked around my request.

 

Also, life has been created in the lab, so the whole abiogenesis angle isn't really working for me anyway. Further, most of Behe's assertions have been debunked. Ken Miller did this quite well, but so have others.

 

I sense that you are trying to fit the evidence into your worldview, sort of like hammering a square peg through a round hole. With me, I generally find it preferable just to use the round peg... :doh:

 

 

Did you happen to catch this program?

 

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Watch the Program | PBS

 

The whole thing is quite worth the watch, but Chapter 8 seems to speak specifically to the points you've raised above.

 

 

Cheers.