Science in the classroom

[memebag]

What do you mean? I simply was implying - people who believe in evolution. I was thinking that if they were in agreement on evolution they might also be on their thoughts of non-living matter...but I could be wrong for sure.

I mean I've never met an "evolutionist". It isn't a faith or a belief. It's a theory that's been tested and verified for 150 years. It's just part of current scientific knowledge.

[barracuda]

Those biologists aren't very good scientists, then. A fact is an objective verifiable observation; a theory is a tested hypothesis that attempts to interpret the facts. The term "theory" is as appropriate for evolution as it is for cell theory, number theory, or the theory of plate tectonics.

I'm a strong proponent of requiring that people who major in natural sciences be required to take a course in the Philosophy of Science.

A scientific theory is based on empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence requires verifiable observation and experimentation.

--> That sounds just like your definition of a fact.

[Heights2Bastrop]

What do you mean by vary?

So you're saying evolution does not apply to the non-living things such as the earth, galaxies etc. What then do most evolutionists believe about them?

Lockmat, that

[memebag]

My opinion is that Evolution only deals with living things - carbon-based molecules infused with electrical energy.

It actually applies to anything that replicates (or is replicated) with variation (i.e. the copies aren't perfect). It's pretty easy to create software that evolves, for instance. The first part of my nickname comes from Richard Dawkins' attempt to explain how evolution can be generalized to anything that has slightly imperfect copies. Lee Smolin and Leonard Susskind have put forth theories applying evolution to universe formation and string theory, respectively.

[Don Julio]

To those who believe evolution to be true, why is it important to you that others believe the same? Or is it?

This is the equivalent of asking why, if you 'believe' in germ theory, why is it important to you that others believe the same?

Modern biology begins with the theory of evolution. If you wish to live in pre-1859 conditions, that's up to you. But I hope you never have to go to a hospital. While you're at it, you might want to start protesting outside Baylor College of Medicine. They teach post-1859 science heavily indebted to Darwin's theories. You will also look like the biggest fool in the world.

[Don Julio]

...but I could be wrong for sure.

That's the smartest thing you've said all day.

[Don Julio]

What do you mean by vary?

Maybe you should actually try to learn something about the theory of evolution before posting?

Here's a great introduction to the subject. Please read it.

[TheNiche]

A scientific theory is based on empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence requires verifiable observation and experimentation.

--> That sounds just like your definition of a fact.

I believe you're misunderstanding my point.

A scientific theory is an interpretation of empirical evidence. For instance, one can observe, measure, and describe that the sky is blue. In so doing, you have gathered factual evidence that may contribute to a theory drawing from other factual evidence which would explain why the sky is blue. The evidence is fact; the interpretation is theory.

Likewise, one can observe, measure, and describe the patterns of reproduction and heredity among a large sample of a species. A truthful statement that describes the data available is a fact, however at that level, is subject to a chaotic variety of outcomes, all of which must be described probabilistically. A complete statement of fact regarding such a large and chaotic data set would be difficult to articulate concisely, much less be understood by a layman. There are also plenty of assumptions to contend with, for instance that the very act of observing did not interfere with the normal mating behavior. If you put all of this information out there, that is a scientific fact. An interpretation of the fact is theory.

Even if all of the evidence available to us supports the theory, that does not mean that all conceivable forms of evidence have been observed; we may not even know enough to look for some kind of evidence, or to include it as a facet of the interpretation if it were right under our noses. Take as an example the study of astronomy between ancient Greece and Copernicus. Astronomers during that time kept on identifying new heavenly bodies which moved through the sky predictably, and they just kept adding on to Ptolemy's theory about spheres to the point that the bloated theory became comically absurd--but still mathematically correct and widely accepted as fact. The demise of Newtonian physics in favor of Einstein's modern physics is not at all absurd but is another good example.

One of the conditions for having a sound scientific theory is that it must be falsifiable...that is in addition to it being testable, as you mentioned. Only very basic concepts are allowed to be axioms, such as that in mathematics, a=a. And the concept of a theorem is only useful in a closed system; it is basically useless within the epistemology of science. When a theory advocated by a scientist with such fervor as he would close his mind to even the possibility of contradictory evidence by pronouncing a theory is fact, that is a profound irony. That person has in effect renounced science and embraced faith. ...only that kind of person doesn't even recognize himself as espousing faith, whereas fundies readily admit it. Which is the superior mind?

...but I could be wrong for sure.

That's the smartest thing you've said all day.

It's the smartest thing ever stated on this forum.

I took an introductory logic course at a community college when I was a senior in high school, then got heavily into physics and philosophy. Try reading Godel's Proof, shown below.

[Don Julio]

Education board OKs standards for teaching evolution

By APRIL CASTRO Associated Press

March 27, 2009, 7:02PM

AUSTIN -- State education leaders forged a compromise Friday on the teaching of evolution in Texas, adopting a new science curriculum that no longer requires educators to teach the weaknesses of all scientific theories.

The State Board of Education voted 13-2 to put in place a plan that would instead require teachers to encourage students to scrutinize

[memebag]

That's the smartest thing you've said all day.

Please don't pile on lockmat. He's trying.

Lockmat: I highly recommend "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. He has a knack for explaining this stuff.

[HtownWxBoy]

No, because they have a book that explains everything, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff

A yes... the good book.

[HtownWxBoy]

I had a discussion with a professor at ACU (Abilene Christian University - Church of Christ), and he told me that a day to god could be millions of years for us. He also told me it would foolish for me to take these stories and not make up my own conclusion & ideas of what the story is teaching... Adam & Eve can mean many different things.

Of course, this was his views, not that of all Christians.

When I was in college I remember one day sitting in one of the public dining areas and this boy came up to me... he attended a Christian college near mine and was basically just going around "preaching". I tried being nice and let him talk and calmly discussed my views, etc. He brought up evolution and his argument was... "if evolution is real, how come we and other animals are not still evolving... why can't we see it happening?". I explained to him (being the good scientist that I am) that evolution happens over long periods of time... sometimes millions of years... and that we can't see it and that we are still evolving. After going into more detail and explaining things he got this look on his face like... "oh my god you might be right, how could I be so stupid". He didn't say anything, but I actually felt a little bad afterwards... I wondered if he went back to his Christian school and dropped out.

[ihop]

What do you mean by vary?

So you're saying evolution does not apply to the non-living things such as the earth, galaxies etc. What then do most evolutionists believe about them?

Evolution isn't an -ism, it's not a belief people subscribe to as a result of faith. People who study evolution are usually evolutionary biologists. Physicists/Astronomers study space and bodies in space, geologists study the earth and its history.

Evolutionary biology & geology are very closely related, because the fossil record helps Geologists understand the history of the Earth, how it formed, and how it has changed since its formation. Geology which gives information about things like the composition of the atmosphere, composition of the ocean, and various catastrophic events over the span of the Earth's history that help Biologists understand evolution.

And as has been stated, people want evolution taught in science books and not creationism or ID because one is science and the others aren't. Creationism & ID presuppose the answers instead of coming to them through use of the scientific method. They'd be more appropriate for a philosophy class or an existential discussion. So people who believe in evolution are much more likely to stop believing in it, should overwhelming scientific evidence against it be provided.

[houstonmacbro]

He didn't say anything, but I actually felt a little bad afterwards... I wondered if he went back to his Christian school and dropped out.

No, he's probably just really, really confused still.

[TheNiche]

Evolution isn't an -ism, it's not a belief people subscribe to as a result of faith.

A belief in evolution can be based in faith if it is presented as an incontrovertible fact rather than as a theoretical interpretation of extremely robust (but not by any means exhaustive) scientific evidence.

[ihop]

A belief in evolution can be based in faith if it is presented as an incontrovertible fact rather than as a theoretical interpretation of extremely robust (but not by any means exhaustive) scientific evidence.

It can, as can any belief. But in the case of evolution I'd say that's the exception, rather than the rule. And I'd say it's a reasonable distinction to make given the context of evolution being taught in science classes.

[TheNiche]

It can, as can any belief. But in the case of evolution I'd say that's the exception, rather than the rule. And I'd say it's a reasonable distinction to make given the context of evolution being taught in science classes.

I don't understand that. Would you please clarify?

[ihop]

I'm saying belief in evolution that is based in faith is the exception, rather than the rule.

[TheNiche]

I'm saying belief in evolution that is based in faith is the exception, rather than the rule.

That's clear enough, but how common are the exceptions? Barracuda stated earlier that, "biologists by and large consider biological evolution to be a fact." Is that only 1% of biologists, just dispersed around the world? Or is the number 20%? Or 49%? Or is the exception the majority? I honestly don't know.

[skyphen]

Wow, they even have their own special names for colors! Would "Flesh of Christ" translate to "peach" in non-Fundie Land, aka the secular world?

[LTAWACS]

This is an embarrassment to the universe.

How do we get these talking apes out of there?

[Don Julio]

This is an embarrassment to the universe.

How do we get these talking apes out of there?

One of the great ironies of modern history is how the anti-evolution mob demonstrates that we humans are, indeed, half a chromosome removed from the chimpanzee. Their ridiculous protests simply prove the essence of evolutionary theory.

[HtownWxBoy]

One of the great ironies of modern history is how the anti-evolution mob demonstrates that we humans are, indeed, half a chromosome removed from the chimpanzee. Their ridiculous protests simply prove the essence of evolutionary theory.

Ha ha... so true.

[TheNiche]

One of the great ironies of modern history is how the anti-evolution mob demonstrates that we humans are, indeed, half a chromosome removed from the chimpanzee. Their ridiculous protests simply prove the essence of evolutionary theory.

Actually, rather from indicating similarities between humans and chimpanzees, abstract thought and the practice of religion is itself one of the stark and defining characteristics that separates homo sapiens from any other hominidae.

Still, I myself would hypothesize that the impulse toward religion is actually just a compulsion to better understand why things are and that it is the very same impulse that fuels scientific and economic endeavor. Understanding why is a process that conveys with it power, and power leads to increased survivability and greater reproductive opportunities among social animals.

[memebag]

Still, I myself would hypothesize that the impulse toward religion is actually just a compulsion to better understand why things are and that it is the very same impulse that fuels scientific and economic endeavor. Understanding why is a process that conveys with it power, and power leads to increased survivability and greater reproductive opportunities among social animals.

I doubt the last part of that. Understanding why can decrease survivability and reproduction, depending on other factors. But I agree that science and religion stem from the same biological and cultural drives to comprehend and predict.

It's fun to look at the history of religion and science from an evolutionary perspective. You can find mutations that have helped and hindered each to survive in their environments.

[Don Julio]

Actually, rather from indicating similarities between humans and chimpanzees, abstract thought and the practice of religion is itself one of the stark and defining characteristics that separates homo sapiens from any other hominidae.

Still, I myself would hypothesize that the impulse toward religion is actually just a compulsion to better understand why things are and that it is the very same impulse that fuels scientific and economic endeavor. Understanding why is a process that conveys with it power, and power leads to increased survivability and greater reproductive opportunities among social animals.

Of course I agree that abstract thinking separates higher primates (like us) from our lesser brethren.

But abstract thought based on myth and hearsay from 2,000 years ago is a humble reminder of just how limited our ability to engage in abstractions really is. We can never fully shed what Darwin called "the indelible stamp of our lowly origin."

[TheNiche]

I doubt the last part of that. Understanding why can decrease survivability and reproduction, depending on other factors. But I agree that science and religion stem from the same biological and cultural drives to comprehend and predict.

It's fun to look at the history of religion and science from an evolutionary perspective. You can find mutations that have helped and hindered each to survive in their environments.

I'd agree that the last part results in convoluted scenarios really quick. ...but I stand by it.

[TheNiche]

Of course I agree that abstract thinking separates higher primates (like us) from our lesser brethren.

Chimpanzees are higher primates.

Am I the only person that finds irony that someone so condescendingly preaches the theory of evolution as it pertains to humans without actually having an especially firm grasp on the scientific evidence?

But abstract thought based on myth and hearsay from 2,000 years ago is a humble reminder of just how limited our ability to engage in abstractions really is. We can never fully shed what Darwin called "the indelible stamp of our lowly origin."

Considering just how much damage has been done to organized religion in this tiny fraction of human existence, spanning only the most recent hundreds of years, I would tend to believe that the population is genetically programmed to be more or less as smart and as dumb as ever along a normal distribution with the change having absolutely nothing to do with the process of evolution. And personally, although I am not inclined to concur with religious beliefs, I am a student of history; if the expanse of mythology, religion, mysticism or its myriad interpretations are to be described as "limited", then I would be inclined to ascribe a lessor descriptor to the whole of the body of scientific knowledge. It doesn't make them more objectively correct than science, but I am convinced that the abstract thought that has been devoted to them is cumulatively greater by several orders of power.

Also, please provide the context of that quote. I think that I've heard it used before but recall it being more in reference to human behaviors that Darwin himself considered morally wrong.

[memebag]

I'd agree that the last part results in convoluted scenarios really quick. ...but I stand by it.

What if the Catholic Church preaches that "God needs babies" for the next thousand years, but science shows that the planet can't support more humans? Then those who understand why will decrease in population, while those who ignore why will increase.

[TheNiche]

What if the Catholic Church preaches that "God needs babies" for the next thousand years, but science shows that the planet can't support more humans? Then those who understand why will decrease in population, while those who ignore why will increase.

Viewed as a mechanism for ignorant people to understand their world, Catholicism would appear to be an excellent reproductive strategy if that is case. As the environment's carrying capacity is exceeded (and it wouldn't be the first time in evolutionary history), human existence may be defined by poverty and hardship, but it would be an existence disproportionately comprised of the progeny of Catholics.

However, I would argue that the drive for humans to understand why is similar to a male bird's drive to build a nest or do a mating dance. It is an instinctual behavior that tends to be successful as compared to an alternative behavior, but is by no means a behavior that guarantees reproductive success. And it is merely pre-programmed with no consideration to statistically unlikely outcomes such as that--for instance--scientists develop atomic weaponry which ultimately gets used to eradicate population centers where scientists reside.