Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools

[Biochemist]

...Theory and fact are not as distinct in the minds of scientists. For this reason it should be clearly understood that since the Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, there is consensus among the scientific community to its validity, with the understanding that there are specific details and facts of the process that have yet to be refined...

I don't think I would go that far. I still think the mechanism of PE is unelucidated, and may well be in conflict with the core tenets of gradualism. To say that "evolution" is a fact is akin to saying "quantum physics" is a fact. Which part? String theory? As long as portions of a theory are better supported than others, I think we should be specific about the issues.

[modest]

I don't think I would go that far. I still think the mechanism of PE is unelucidated, and may well be in conflict with the core tenets of gradualism. To say that "evolution" is a fact is akin to saying "quantum physics" is a fact. Which part? String theory? As long as portions of a theory are better supported than others, I think we should be specific about the issues.

 

Gravity is a fact even if Newton's theory of gravity is wrong or if Lambda is zero, or not zero. You fail to distinguish (purposefully it would seem) between the theory, the effects of the theory, and the mechanisms responsible for the theory. You do the same thing with ID. Intelligent design is creationism. The origin of the term “intelligent design” is from the book “Of Pandas and People” - a classroom textbook. The term 'creationism' was replaced in the book's draft with ‘intelligent design’ as a response to the supreme court case Edwards v. Aguillard:

(:eek_big: The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind. The legislative history demonstrates that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious teaching. The Act's primary purpose was to change the public school science curriculum to provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety. Thus, the Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science that embodies a particular religious tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects. In either case, the Act violates the First Amendment

 

Attacking PE doesn't disprove evolution or go anywhere toward proving intelligent design. The constant implication otherwise is forcing the dots to connect unnaturally and unscientifically.

 

-modest

[Biochemist]

Gravity is a fact even if Newton's theory of gravity is wrong or if Lambda is zero, or not zero.

Gravity is not a particularly good example. Gravity is both a fact (you can measure it) and a theory (Why does this happen? Gravitons?).

You fail to distinguish (purposefully it would seem) between the theory, the effects of the theory, and the mechanisms responsible for the theory.

True.

You do the same thing with ID. Intelligent design is creationism. The origin of the term “intelligent design” is from the book “Of Pandas and People” - a classroom textbook. The term 'creationism' was replaced in the book's draft with ‘intelligent design’ as a response to the supreme court case Edwards v. Aguillard:

I may be incorrect, but I did not think that Aquillard coined the ID phrase. He just took off with it. Is he the original framer of the "intelligent design" concept? My intent it not to defend the positions of non-scientists. It is to defend the science of any valid position.

Attacking PE doesn't disprove evolution or go anywhere toward proving intelligent design.

I never meant to imply that it did. I intend to support the notion that evolution is a "theory" because some internal subtheories are inconsistent (just as subtheories within string theory are inconsistent). Ergo, by definition, you could argue that "common descent" is a fact (although I would not) but not that "evolution" is. I am not taking an advocacy position for any fact base here. I am making a definitional argument.

[InfiniteNow]

I intend to support the notion that evolution is a "theory" because some internal subtheories are inconsistent (just as subtheories within string theory are inconsistent).

 

Speaking of definitions, let's be clear how the word "theory" differs in science as opposed to the word "theory" in general non-scientific parlance.

 

 

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.

 

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

 

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

 

 

A theory is much more than some "conjecture" as most uneducated people imply when they toss the fact that evolution by natural selection is *just* a theory.

 

As you've clearly not reviewed the links already shared in this thread, here's one I've already provided which addresses this specific argument you are attempting to further:

 

 

 

See Chapter 6 (which specifically addresses this idea of evolution being "just a theory"):

 

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

 

 

And... before you dismiss the NOVA program as mere theatrics, you should note that they put the program together from exact trascripts available from the Dover case in Pennsylvania, and the comments made by the scientists are all emprically supported.

[modest]

Gravity is a fact even if Newton's theory of gravity is wrong or if Lambda is zero, or not zero.

Gravity is not a particularly good example. Gravity is both a fact (you can measure it) and a theory (Why does this happen? Gravitons?).

 

Right. Why it happens and what happens are two different things. This is a distinction that you ignore admittedly here:

 

You fail to distinguish (purposefully it would seem) between the theory, the effects of the theory, and the mechanisms responsible for the theory.

True.

 

You suggest and even state that evolution is not fact while attempting to discredit one proposed mechanism of evolution. This is exactly like trying to disprove gravity by attacking gravitons. Despite what you say, this is a good example. I think you would benefit from realizing that attacking a proposed method is incongruent with the grand conclusions you've made (or implied).

 

I may be incorrect, but I did not think that Aquillard coined the ID phrase. He just took off with it. Is he the original framer of the "intelligent design" concept?

 

The originator of the intelligent design concept was a creationist many thousands of years ago. This is my point. The term creationism needed to be changed after the supreme court case (linked above) insisted creationism not be taught in public schools. The name change isn't very clever. Surely, you can see past it. Intelligent design = omnipotent creator. If, by chance, you are not talking about ID then I strongly suggest you stop talking about it.

 

My intent it not to defend the positions of non-scientists. It is to defend the science of any valid position.

 

I'm not questioning your intent. Intended or not, you implication is that PE being unproven leads to the possibility of ID holding water. That's more of a stretch than logic would permit.

 

Ergo, by definition, you could argue that "common descent" is a fact (although I would not) but not that "evolution" is.

 

Where does that leave intelligent design? Saying that God the intelligent designer is the 'cause' of evolution? In other words, he said "let there be evolution" then fell asleep for a few billion years. That's not a theory. There's nothing predicted there past the theory of evolution itself. There's nothing to test. Ergo, ID in any form does not belong in schools.

 

-modest

[Biochemist]

The originator of the intelligent design concept was a creationist many thousands of years ago.

I am frankly a little weary of attempting to separate "creationism" from Intelligent Design. There is only a vague relationship between ID and creationism.

This is my point. The term creationism needed to be changed after the supreme court case (linked above) insisted creationism not be taught in public schools.

Criminy. You are actually suggesting that the terminology of "intelligent design" did not surface until the court case?????

you {sic} implication is that PE being unproven leads to the possibility of ID holding water.

I said nothing of the sort. What I said is that it is legitimate to characterize evolution as a theory (versus a "fact"), because some of the sub-theories within the theory of evolution are internally inconsistent. This assertion has nothing to do with ID.

[Biochemist]

......Intelligent design = omnipotent creator....

This is roughly as accurate as Evolutionist = atheistic pagan.

 

I don't typically make these associations. And I suspect that my Christian friends that would (probably) describe themselves as evolutionists would not either.

[InfiniteNow]

I am frankly a little weary of attempting to separate "creationism" from Intelligent Design. There is only a vague relationship between ID and creationism.

Surely, you jest. Again, this has been covered by the links in this thread which you've clearly not bothered to review.

 

In case you missed it, I did this only two posts before yours here.

 

Criminy. You are actually suggesting that the terminology of "intelligent design" did not surface until the court case?????

You seem to be arguing against your own misrepresentation of modest's true position... instead of his actual position.

 

 

What I said is that it is legitimate to characterize evolution as a theory (versus a "fact"), because some of the sub-theories within the theory of evolution are internally inconsistent. This assertion has nothing to do with ID.

 

You seem to have also missed my presentation about the difference between a scientific theory and a non-scientific theory. One is predictive, the other is conjecture, and you are equivocating the different meanings in an attempt to suggest that evolution is some unsupported back of the napkin scratch that a few scientists came up with one night after a few beers.

 

Again, this has already been covered in this thread, and it would be disrespectful to our forum members if you continue to avoid paying closer attention. The data which refutes your claims has already been offered, yet you continue with the same tactics.

 

 

I do not respect intellectual dishonesty, and I hope you adjust your present tactics so you may maintain the respect I currently have for you. Please consider this comment before continuing much further here.

[Biochemist]

Surely, you jest. Again, this has been covered by the links in this thread which you've clearly not bothered to review.

 

The fact that folks on this thread have conveniently (or accidentally) misconstrued the meaning of "creationism" is interesting, but probably irrelevant.

 

Since you insist on discussing creationism, let me offer a framework for a description of creationism so that we can STOP talking about it.

 

Creationists are generally divided into two categories: "young earth" creationists (YECs) and "old earth" creationists (OECs). The former are those who believe the earth was created in 7 24-hour calendar days about 6000 years ago. The OECs are creationists that believe the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old, and that there have been a series of changes since then that have been steered by a divine entity.

 

I don't have any Christian friends in higher science curricula that are YECs, but there might be some.

 

Among the OECs there is a subset of folks that are "theological evolutionists". These are folks that generally accept the standard evolutionary model, but think that model was designed by a creator. These folks would be indistinguishable (from a technical position) from any other evolutionist.

 

Lastly there are the ID folks. These folks are new, and hence somewhat heterogeneous. Speaking ONLY of the basic scientists that are ID proponents, (and from my admittedly incomplete perspective, give the relative youth of this terminology) these folks are mostly concerned with some of the inordinately complex biochemical structures that are poorly explained by the serial mutation thesis of the standard dogma.

 

Basic science ID folks contend that the standard dogma (specifically, serial mutation as a driving force for speciation) is not a complete picture.

 

 

To be clear there is absolutely 0% overlap between an ID proponent in this category and a "young earth" creationist. So, can we STOP taking about creationists? The terminology is too inexplicit.

[InfiniteNow]

To be clear there is absolutely 0% overlap between an ID proponent in this category and a "young earth" creationist. So, can we STOP taking about creationists? The terminology is too inexplicit.

 

Two words for ya:

 

cdesign proponentists

[Biochemist]

You suggest and even state that evolution is not fact while attempting to discredit one proposed mechanism of evolution. This is exactly like trying to disprove gravity by attacking gravitons.

I don't agree with this at all. I must have been really unclear in my previous posts. Let me give this another shot.

 

Gravity is measurable directly. We measure gravity with scales. We can vary the measure by changing mass of the item on the scale, moving the scale to a different "large field" (e.g., to the moon) or by showing the offset of gravtiy with inertia (e.g., an orbit). These are direct measurements.

 

The theory of gravity would include a set of "why" questions, and that discussion deserves to be called a "theory".

 

In the case of evolution, we don't measure anything directly. We measure a large number of items indirectly, use them as indicators, and some number of those indicators point in different directions. (As opposed to the gravity measurement example above, where the gravity scalars are universally consistent).

 

There are numerous open issues in evolutionary theory. If we use the English usage of evolution to mean the "things have changed," then I would agree that "evolution" is a fact.

 

But if we include the four legs of Darwinianism, I think we have unresolved fact issues. I remain a profound skeptic of mutation-mediated gradualism, ergo I think Darwinian Evolution (as classicly defined) is NOT a fact. It is a well supported theory that has some significant and interesting open issues.

[Erasmus00]

Gravity is measurable directly. We measure gravity with scales. We can vary the measure by changing mass of the item on the scale, moving the scale to a different "large field" (e.g., to the moon) or by showing the offset of gravtiy with inertia (e.g., an orbit). These are direct measurements.

 

The theory of gravity would include a set of "why" questions, and that discussion deserves to be called a "theory".

 

In the case of evolution, we don't measure anything directly. We measure a large number of items indirectly, use them as indicators, and some number of those indicators point in different directions. (As opposed to the gravity measurement example above, where the gravity scalars are universally consistent).

 

There are numerous open issues in evolutionary theory. If we use the English usage of evolution to mean the "things have changed," then I would agree that "evolution" is a fact.

 

But if we include the four legs of Darwinianism, I think we have unresolved fact issues. I remain a profound skeptic of mutation-mediated gradualism, ergo I think Darwinian Evolution (as classicly defined) is NOT a fact. It is a well supported theory that has some significant and interesting open issues.

 

I think this rather hits the nail on the head. Gravity is both a fact (things fall) and a theory (general relativity). Evolution is both a fact(living things change over time) and a theory (natural selection/Darwin, etc), as Stephen Gould elegantly told us.

-Will

[Essay]

There are numerous open issues in evolutionary theory. If we use the English usage of evolution to mean the "things have changed," then I would agree that "evolution" is a fact.

 

But if we include the four legs of Darwinianism, I think we have unresolved fact issues. I remain a profound skeptic of mutation-mediated gradualism, ergo I think Darwinian Evolution (as classicly defined) is NOT a fact. It is a well supported theory that has some significant and interesting open issues.

Interesting thread....

Several times I've been tempted to include my 2 cents worth; but not to resolve anything (unless resolved to teach critical thinking in school along with evolution). :eek:

 

 

I think just the word, "fact" is the cause of a lot of misunderstanding (in addition to the word "theory").

At merriam-webster.com "fact" is given 5 definitions.

 

The first two are obsolete & archaic.

Numbers 3 & 4 are the standard, common usage.

Number 5 is more appropriate for scientific and philosophical endeavors.

 

1: obsolete: a thing done; as a feat, crime, or action

2: archaic: performance, doing

 

3: the quality of being actual : actuality (a question of fact hinges on evidence)

4a: something that has actual existence (space exploration is now a fact)

4b: an actual occurrence (prove the fact of damage)

 

5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality

 

Other dictionaries have a similar view, with several definitions referring to "something that actually exists; reality; truth:" or a "real occurrence; an event."

 

Each dictionary has a final definition which qualifies the "fact" as based on a bit more subjectivity by using language such as "a concept whose truth can be proved;" or something "said to be true or supposed to have happened" or "believed to be true or real."

 

My favorite is the simple "information presented as having objective reality."

 

This distinction is important when talking about the validity of science. Methodologically, science must proceed as if the "concept" or "belief" IS an objective fact; even if philosophically, science has a hard time arguing for the objective reality of it's basic, fundamental premises.

...

The methodological materialism that science is based upon, is often confused with a philosophical materialism that atheism is based upon. It seems it is this confusion that leads to attacks on evolution; or as one so confused might call it, evolutionism.

 

hmmmm... maybe this doesn't quite pertain to the current discussion, but....

wtf am i trying to say?

 

Well, I guess just always keep the limitations of the word "fact" in mind while discussing scientific stuff. :)

 

I don't even know what neo-Darwinism is, or what PE is, or etc. :doh:

I do know that evolution is wondorous and more complex than we will ever be able to fully understand or even model.

What we do assume about evolution is useful, explanatory, predictive and inspiring. :applause:

[modest]

Biochemist,

 

It is clear to me that you don't understand the function or nature of a scientific theory. You have said that evolution is a theory because it can't be proven. That demonstrates a complete misunderstanding. I tried to highlight the problem with an example; you can't very well say "gravity is a theory because it isn't proven". But you didn't get that and just kept arguing your enigmatic point.

 

Saying an idea is a scientific theory is a credit to the idea. Evolution is a theory. Intelligent design is not. ID doesn't make testable predictions.

 

In any case, I'm sure you will fail to see the value of this but rather push some definitions to their extremes and force some argument out of it. I fail to see the use in that or this conversation.

 

-modest

[Biochemist]

I think this rather hits the nail on the head. Gravity is both a fact (things fall) and a theory (general relativity). Evolution is both a fact(living things change over time) and a theory (natural selection/Darwin, etc), as Stephen Gould elegantly told us.

Now we agree. My caveat is that usually (I think) when folks say "Evolution" they actually intend to say "Darwinian Evolution."

 

But I think you and I are on the same page.

[Galapagos]

New Anti-Evolution Film Stirs Controversy - Yahoo! News

 

Don't know if this has been posted elsewhere yet, I thought it was funny:

 

New Anti-Evolution Film Stirs Controversy

 

Dave Mosher

LiveScience Staff Writer

LiveScience.com Fri Apr 4, 1:40 PM ET

 

NEW YORK - A handful of journalists filed into a small theater at the Park Avenue Screening Room here last night to see a preview for "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." The 90-minute documentary-style flick features Ben Stein, a comedian, lawyer, actor and former speechwriter. It is a movie about the so-called debate between supporters of "intelligent design" and Charles Darwin's scientific theory of evolution.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Filmmakers proclaim in press materials that Stein "discovers an elitist scientific establishment that has traded in its skepticism for dogma" during the course of the movie through interviews with scientists and anti-evolution advocates.

 

Some scientists, however, are outraged about the conduct of the filmmaker during production and screening and the film's effort to tie Darwin's ideas to Hitler. One prominent scientist who is in the movie has since called it shoddy and sinister.

 

Intelligently designed

 

Intelligent design, or ID, holds that life on Earth is so complex that evolutionary theory can't explain the complexities, so life must have been designed. Scientists see it as creationism veiled in pseudoscience, an effort with religious backing designed to generate the appearance of controversy among scientists about Darwinian evolution where there is none.

 

ID has made headlines in recent years in Kansas, Ohio and Michigan as school boards and courts contested its teaching in public schools alongside evolution, which is a scientific theory holding that new species appear via gradual changes in inherited traits and mutations. In 2005, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district from teaching ID in biology class.

 

The basic principles of evolution nor ID are clearly explained in the movie.

 

"Expelled" is smattered with gloomy scenes of the Berlin Wall's construction, the Holocaust and other World War II-era footage, with Stein arguing during the course of it that a handful of academics have been persecuted for their beliefs that run counter to the scientific establishment.

 

Many of the ID supporters and sympathizers Stein interviews in the movie, however, were let go, not offered tenure or other career incentives because of expired contracts, improper publishing ethics and other conduct unrelated to their religious views, according to university and institution spokespeople who appeared in "Expelled."

 

Stein claims he "encountered many more [academics] who didn't want to appear on film," because of their fear of being persecuted.

 

But among the millions of scientists currently working in schools and institutions across the world, thousands of whom are trained evolutionary biologists, the overwhelming consensus is that evolution is a well-supported theory backed by observations in several fields using multiple lines of evidence.

 

Foul play?

 

Scientists interviewed in "Expelled," namely evolutionary biologists Richard Dawkins of Oxford University and Paul Zachary "PZ" Myers of the University of Minnesota and author of the blog "Pharyngula," have been crying foul since the movie's name was changed last year.

 

The two have written on their Web sites and blogs that the original film was called "Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion" based on correspondence with Mark Mathis, the movie's associate producer at Rampant Films. But in late 2007 the movie title was changed to "Expelled" for marketing reasons, the producers reportedly said.

 

In a press release issued by Premise Media, which has also helped finance "The Passion of the Christ" and "The Chronicles of Narnia" movies, film producer Walt Ruloff claims the makers avoided distorting interviews.

 

"The incredible thing about 'Expelled' is that we don't resort to manipulating our interviews for the purpose of achieving the 'shock effect,'" Ruloff said.

 

But Michael Schermer, editor of "Skeptic Magazine" and an on-screen interview in the movie, said Stein and Mathis asked him the same question a dozen times during his interview for the film to extract an answer they were looking for.

 

"In frustration I finally said something like 'Do you have any other questions to ask me or do you keep asking me this question in hopes that I'll give a different answer?'" according to a statement by Schermer on richarddawkins.net.

 

Questionable claims

 

Dawkins, Myers, Schermer and others are also outraged by the claims in the movie, especially that Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory is partly responsible for Nazism and the Holocaust.

 

In the film, after Stein is told of this purported connection by several ID supporters, who also tell him that Darwin's ideas of species fitness led to U.S. eugenics programs in the 1920s, Stein stares down a dimly lit statue of Darwin in London's Natural History Museum.

 

During a March 28 telephone press conference for "Expelled," Myers snuck in on the call and confronted the filmmakers about the issue. "Have you ever heard of a pogrom?" Myers asked. "Those have been going on for centuries." (A pogrom is an organized massacre of helpless people.)

 

On his Web site, Dawkins wrote that the Darwin-Nazi association is a fallacy.

 

"The alleged association between Darwinism and Nazism is harped on for what seems like hours, and it is quite simply an outrage," Dawkins said of the series of scenes in the movie. "Hitler was ignorant and bonkers enough for his hideous mind to have imbibed some sort of garbled misunderstanding of Darwin but it is hardly Darwin's fault if he did."

 

Expelled or uninvited?

 

During a March 20 screening of "Expelled" at the Mall of America in Minneapolis, which Myers registered to attend via a public Web site with his family, he was asked to leave by security while standing in line.

 

The security guard said a film producer gave the orders to remove Myers from the theater.

 

According to various news reports, producers accused Myers of being a "gatecrasher" - someone trying to attend an event uninvited - but he was registered for the event via the open, online registration process. But Dawkins, who also registered to attend the screening, saw the documentary without incident along with Myers' family.

 

"It's an incredible piece of inept public relations to expel somebody ... from a film about expelling people for their opinions," Dawkins said during a videotaped discussion with Myers, "a film in which [Myers is] present, and acknowledged and thanked in the acknowledgements at the end of the film."

 

The overall mood of the film, as its makers assert, is satirical and sarcastic - and almost always at the cost of the scientists backing evolutionary theory. When Dawkins discusses scientific hypotheses for the seeding of life on Earth from another planet, for example, the film quickly displays black-and-white movie clips of flying saucers and aliens.

 

Dawkins said in the video on his Web site that he was unimpressed with the artistic direction of "Expelled."

 

"I'm not a professional filmmaker myself but I've had a lot to do with making documentaries," Dawkins said. "This was a very, very shoddy, poor, inartistic piece of work."

 

Dawkins also noted that images of guillotines, firing squads and other reactionary film clips that flashed between the words of sources especially garnered his dislike. "It was worse than just artless, it was also quite sinister," he said. "It was a bad film in every way."

 

"Expelled" opens in theaters nationwide starting on April 18.

[InfiniteNow]

A few pages back. :hyper:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/biology/13837-evolution-must-taught-public-schools-2.html#post205127

 

http://hypography.com/forums/biology/13837-evolution-must-taught-public-schools-9.html#post212302