Here we go: Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching

[Midnight Son]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&e=3&u=/ap/20041107/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate

The city's school board has revised its science curriculum to allow the teaching of creationism, prompting an outcry from more than 300 educators who urged that the decision be reversed.

School board members believed that a state law governing the teaching of evolution was too restrictive. The science curriculum "should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory," said Joni Burgin, superintendent of the district of 1,000 students in northwest Wisconsin.

Last month, when the board examined its science curriculum, language was added calling for "various models/theories" of origin to be incorporated.

The decision provoked more than 300 biology and religious studies faculty members to write a letter last week urging the Grantsburg board to reverse the policy. It follows a letter sent previously by 43 deans at Wisconsin public universities.

"Insisting that teachers teach alternative theories of origin in biology classes takes time away from real learning, confuses some students and is a misuse of limited class time and public funds," said Don Waller, a botanist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

*sigh*

[Duality]

OOH! Are we part of the south now?!

[GregB]

I just don't get this. Exactly what is there to teach about creationism that you can't cover in about 30 seconds?

[MarchHare]

So I assume they'll be teaching the Creation myths from many different world religions and not just Christianity, right? Right?

Afterall, teaching Creationism should not be totally inclusive of just one religion's theory.

[Jakub]

I like how it's being put forward as a theory, rather than a provably-false hypothesis.

[Silverlight]

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

[Drastic]

I just don't get this. Exactly what is there to teach about creationism that you can't cover in about 30 seconds?
On the plus side, it makes the final really easy to ace.

True or False (circle one): God did it.

[Duality]

It is just so odd.

I went to 12 years of Catholic school and never was Creationism even considered placed in a science class. Sure we learned about it, but that was in a religion class.

[Tyjenks]

OOH! Are we part of the south now?!


Stupid, stupid Christians. I thought they were all supposed to stay in the ignorant South where they belong.

[Silverlight]

It is just so odd.

I went to 12 years of Catholic school and never was Creationism even considered placed in a science class. Sure we learned about it, but that was in a religion class.
As I remember reading it:

Historically, Catholics have been much more flexible about taking the Bible as literal truth. When Catholicism was the main Christian doctrine of Europe, there was a really big deal made out of essentially keeping the Bible secret (i.e. in Latin) and preventing the general population from reading it. The Protestants (aside from other gripes) mostly took the philosophical line that anyone could legitimately read the Word of God and learn from it, so they sort of took that to heart and many groups became Biblical literalists. (This also tied into the idea that the Bible alone was sufficient as an exposition of Christian faith, as opposed to the RCs who believed that both the Bible and the Church's traditions defined Christian belief.)

Fast-forward to today and those same groups are still Biblical literalists. Catholics don't have the same trouble with evolution because the Catholic belief system never assumed that the Bible was the whole story and never assumed that it didn't need interpretation.

[Tyjenks]

OOH! Are we part of the south now?!


Stupid, stupid Christians. I thought they were all supposed to stay in the ignorant South where they belong.

I mean how can we point and make fun if they insist in congregating outside of their pens.

[Jakub]

I'm Catholic and from what I know of Catholic history, the Church had to be beaten into submission on evolution, where the Earth was in the universe, and now even the Big Bang theory.

Pope John Paul II told Stephen Hawking and the scientific community that research should stop at the Big Bang, not look before that. Apparently the Big Bang was an act of god.

Of course, the ironic thing is that the Big Bang theory is falling out of favor as a model of the creation of the universe - into something much stranger, like a cyclical series of Big Bangs - where one universe after another explodes, expands, and atrophies away through entropy. Or that's my understanding of it.

[Tyjenks]

Of course, the ironic thing is that the Big Bang theory is falling out of favor as a model of the creation of the universe - into something much stranger, like a cyclical series of Big Bangs - where one universe after another explodes, expands, and atrophies away through entropy. Or that's my understanding of it.

I hope you are not suggesting that science and all of the supreme intellects around the world did not have it right. :wink:

[Qenan]

The fact that creationism is taken seriously as a competing explanation to evolution is just sad. Might as well be living in Iran... yeah, exaggeration. But it's the kind of thing that happens in a theocracy.

[Silverlight]

I'm Catholic and from what I know of Catholic history, the Church had to be beaten into submission on evolution, where the Earth was in the universe, and now even the Big Bang theory.

Well, yeah, the Church did. The general population didn't.

[Enidigm]

Like i said in another previous post, teaching evolution has moved way beyond any rational debate and become a matter of cultural identification. Believing Christians honestly feel as though they are singled out and attacked by an equally implausable (or at least unverifiable) "belief system". I think the those Biology and Evolutionist popularizing writers like SJG never understood the implications of going back to quote Darwin whenever they re-verified through some new experiment a cardinal point of evolution. To the believing layman, Darwin becomes literally a competing voice with the Bible, and by singling one man out instead of continually emphasising the communal nature of scientific progress, makes it easier to attack as if it were some false holy book whose principles are ultimately based on "faith" of certain unknowable processes - lost to history - unfolding a certain way; just as are their own beliefs

Of course this is also part and parcel of the "culture of faith", which deals with contradictory delimmas by ignoring them, or manning the trenches with the believing corp (like through group bible studies) to shore up belief if pesky reality starts to penetrate the veil of faith. I was writing this for another article, but i'll post this personal example here...

"When i was ten years old, during an expensive dinner at a family reunion/holiday, at some turn of a conversation, i told my Uncle i didn't believe in God. I told him that i couldn't see the difference between the Bible and the stories of the Greeks, and that they might be equally true as equally false. At the time i was thinking of D'aulaire's Book of Greek Myths - Greek mythology never had a comparable single holy book, but whatever. The table froze in silence. My Uncle threw his napkin down and stormed off, shouting that he refused to be lectured by a ten year old. He's held a civilized grudge against me ever since, at least such a grudge as a God-Fearing Christian can hold against a godless unbeliever, whom he still does want, in the end, to save from the flames. He has yet to tell me how i was wrong. "

This is pretty much how Faithful Americans, on the whole (i'm sure there are contradictory examples) deal with their religion. Contrary views are personal attacks, and are obstacles to be overcome in the path of faith, like some sort of wierd intellectual, but still demonic, temptation.

Of course at least they haven't banned evolution in Wisconson. I don't doubt that it will be banned in some states eventually, now that we are at the cusp of our own cultural revolution.

[Oghier]

I love the way these people justify their actions, usually some flavor of "Why should we just teach one theory? Shouldn't we present our children with the alternatives?" It sounds so rational and open-minded! And you *know* they will be open-minded on other subjects, too. Right?

<cough>

[Tyjenks]

Of course at least they haven't banned evolution in Wisconson. I don't doubt that it will be banned in some states eventually, now that we are at the cusp of our own cultural revolution.

I expect we will also go back to considering blacks as 3/5 of a man, as well. Wait, I think the new Limbaugh talking ponts start with taking women's right to vote away first. At least, that's what my preacher instructed me to do along with the other 51% of the nation that makes up our kind at the weekly brain wash meetings this morning.

Any of you having suicidal thoughts and heading towards ground zero? If so, an intervention is in order.

Wait, I just looked outside and sure enough this is the 5th day in a row since Tuesday that the sun actually did rise in the sky and troops did not storm my house. One second, let me check, yep, I still have all of my civil liberties intact, too, but then I am in the majority of chosen who are protected.

Note to self: find every post where I claimed I was not voting for Bush and delete.

[Brian Koontz]

Like i said in another previous post, teaching evolution has moved way beyond any rational debate and become a matter of cultural identification. Believing Christians honestly feel as though they are singled out and attacked by an equally implausable (or at least unverifiable) "belief system".

Very nice post.

[shift6]

Stupid, stupid Christians. I thought they were all supposed to stay in the ignorant South where they belong.
A school board hardly a congregation makes. Note that "[t]he decision provoked more than 300 biology and religious studies faculty members to write a letter last week urging the Grantsburg board to reverse the policy." So in other words religious studies faculty also opposed this idiotic decision by a school board who doesn't like and feels they can flout the state laws under which they work.

I'm afraid what you have here, folks, is analagous to "activist judges". No more, no less. But please, this is the season for generalization of groups who have idiot activist extremist members, so have at it.

[Sidd_Budd]

I like how it's being put forward as a theory, rather than a provably-false hypothesis.

Jakub, I'm not sure if I understand you here. Are you suggesting that creationism is able to be reduced to a scientific hypothesis that can be confirmed or disconfirmed? If so, could you briefly state the methods this study would use?

NOTE: I have lots of problems with this decision by the Wisconsin school board, but it's not because I believe that creationism can be "proven" false.

[Bub, Andrew]

Creationism teaches that the world is 6,000 years old and that all life was created at the same time and is unchanging. Carbon dating, the fossil record, etc., prove all of the above demonstrably false.

[Silverlight]

Jakub, I'm not sure if I understand you here. Are you suggesting that creationism is able to be reduced to a scientific hypothesis that can be confirmed or disconfirmed? If so, could you briefly state the methods this study would use?

6000-year-old-Creationism, i.e. believing the Earth is 6000 years old and all that, is fairly easily reduced to a falsifiable - and falsified - scientific hypothesis. It's fairly easy to stretch Creationism to fit what we know, and moderately-conspiratorial theories about exactly what was meant by a "day" and other such things tend to abound. The general hypothesis that God created the universe is not only unfalsifiable but doesn't even answer the same question as science is trying to answer.

[Sidd_Budd]

Thanks for the expansion, Andrew & Silverlight. I was confusing creationism as a concept (God created the universe) with Creationism as a theory (which hypothesizes that the earth is 6000 years old). The former simply can't be tested using the scientific method, as Silverlight pointed out, while evidence for the latter is easily refuted.

[magnet]

I think the terms are even more complicated than that.

Creationists generally believe in that the species that exist today were the result of "special creation" and were individually formed. They split into at least two camps regarding the age of the universe. Some creationists believe the earth is older than 6000 years, but Adam and Eve were still specially created by God.

Every serious biologist believes that all forms of life on earth have a common origin. There was no Adam and Eve. Rather, humans have a common ancestor with other modern primates.

This theory is commonly called "evolution", but strictly speaking "evolution" refers to any change in a species over time. Since we know species change over time (e.g. dog breeds have changed over human history), biologists can state that "evolution is a fact."

Creationists interpret that to indicate a narrow-mindedness regarding Darwin's theory, but Darwin's theory actually refers to two concepts that are linked, but not the same, as evolution. The first is "natural selection," an anthropomorphic version of the selection that all animal breeders perform. Darwin recognized that, given time, nature was just as capable of provoking evolution as, say, a dog breeder.

Darwin's breakthrough was to recognize that, given time, evolution leads to speciation - the generation of new species from existing ones. Putting it all together, Darwin was able to come up with a theory for the origin of new species using only natural forces. Evolution is the intermediary between natural selection and speciation. That's why his book is called "The Origin of Species" and not "Evolution." His theory is pretty much the glue that binds all the other branches of biology together.

[shift6]

Creationism teaches that the world is 6,000 years old and that all life was created at the same time and is unchanging. Carbon dating, the fossil record, etc., prove all of the above demonstrably false.
That's "young earth Creationism". There is also "old earth Creationism" which holds that there was a (Biblically) indeterminate period of time between initial creation and where geneologies began (which is really how human things get dated by Bible readers), so if you want to say 4 Billion, that's fine. And OEC agrees with the demonstrable, empirical evidence of carbon dating, rock layers, astronomical observations, etc.

Also, "creationism" can be compatible with "evolution". It cannot, however, be compatible with "abiogenesis". The difference is important.

[Toddy]

Break it down any way you want, teaching Creationism as a scientific theory of any sort is insane. It's a wonderful religious allegory, folks, and you can fit science into it just fine if you really want to. But teaching Creationism *as* science? Wow. It's absolutely stunning that this is happening in the US, in 2004. Enjoy the next four years, folks.

[awdougherty]

The problem I have with teaching creationism is if 1) they only do creationism according to Christianity and 2) they include stuff that has been proven false (such as the earth being only 6000 years old). If they really want to teach it, they have to handle it like you would any other academic subject matter. It wouldn't bother me if they presented it in the following fashion:

"The origin of the universe isn't known, but here are some ideas. A single big bang started the whole thing off. The universe is constantly in cycle contracting to a small point and then exploding in another bang, then contracting. Another idea is the idea of a creator getting the whole things started." (I don't have a great command of any of the stories)

Then the teachers should give an honest breakdown of each theory, talk about how we don't know, and explain why scientists might lean towards one and not the other. As someone said, it could be a catalyst for some nice debate.

My 10th grade biology teacher flat out laughed at the idea of creationism when he presented the theory of evolution. But he included the big bang into the more specific, more provable part of evolution, so I called him on that and he got pissed.

[Midnight Son]

My problem with teaching creationism is that it isn't a SCIENCE. It is no more scientific that reading entrails or tarot cards. Putting it in a dress and calling it "Intelligent Design" changes nothing.

[magnet]

The problem I have with teaching creationism is if 1) they only do creationism according to Christianity and 2) they include stuff that has been proven false (such as the earth being only 6000 years old). If they really want to teach it, they have to handle it like you would any other academic subject matter. It wouldn't bother me if they presented it in the following fashion:

"The origin of the universe isn't known, but here are some ideas. A single big bang started the whole thing off. The universe is constantly in cycle contracting to a small point and then exploding in another bang, then contracting. Another idea is the idea of a creator getting the whole things started." (I don't have a great command of any of the stories)


If there were a sufficient number of activists for it, would you object to your children being taught the following in science class?

"The cause of disease isn't known, but here are some ideas. Viruses and bacteria interact with elements of the immune system to cause symptoms. Another idea is that evil spirits come out at night and are inhaled."

[Tyjenks]

Stupid, stupid Christians. I thought they were all supposed to stay in the ignorant South where they belong.
A school board hardly a congregation makes. Note that "[t]he decision provoked more than 300 biology and religious studies faculty members to write a letter last week urging the Grantsburg board to reverse the policy." So in other words religious studies faculty also opposed this idiotic decision by a school board who doesn't like and feels they can flout the state laws under which they work.

I'm afraid what you have here, folks, is analagous to "activist judges". No more, no less. But please, this is the season for generalization of groups who have idiot activist extremist members, so have at it.

I know. My sarcasm laced posts were thrown up because of the, "Uh-oh, the Theocratic changes are already beginning to destroy the country. Run for your lives." vibe that is pulsing through the P&R section.

I don't think it is a good idea either. I really do not have a problem with any religion's practices and beliefs being taught. Knowledge of cultural differences are woefully inadequate amongst all ethnic and religious groups. Teaching it as science of some sort is nutty. OTOH, stating we know all there is to know, evolution, as we understand it, is the only theory that makes sense, and there is no way some being could not have arranged it all, is pretty bold.

However, I could be talking out of my ass because I still hold that the Earth is flat and the Sun and stars revolve around us.

[Brian Koontz]

My problem with teaching creationism is that it isn't a SCIENCE. It is no more scientific that reading entrails or tarot cards. Putting it in a dress and calling it "Intelligent Design" changes nothing.

I don't doubt that most of you already know this, but I'll make it explicit:

Creationism is considered a science in order to compete against (and ultimately "defeat", in the best case scenario for its supporters) Evolution. It would lose a lot of power if it was pushed into the dreaded "religion" section or even into philosophy or culture.

So congrats to the school administrators... you've been manipulated.

Rove again smiles.

[Al]

Believing Christians honestly feel as though they are singled out and attacked by an equally implausable (or at least unverifiable) "belief system".What is unverifiable in evolution?

[awdougherty]

If there were a sufficient number of activists for it, would you object to your children being taught the following in science class?

"The cause of disease isn't known, but here are some ideas. Viruses and bacteria interact with elements of the immune system to cause symptoms. Another idea is that evil spirits come out at night and are inhaled."

Yes actually, because while I appreciate the point you're making, the analogy is too absurd to be useful. We have a much better understanding of how illnesses attack the human body, and a much clearer way of researching those attacks than we do the big bang.

My biggest beef is that saying a big bang created the universe isn't really science, at least not in that broad sense. If you said that the universe is in flux, expanding and contracting, eventually collapsing on itself to the point of creating enough pressure to create a big bang. That's more scientific, but as far as I know, scientists really don't have a ton of evidence to really tell them exactly how the whole universe got started. Personally I wouldn't want creationism mentioned at all in schools, but if it's going to be mentioned, I don't think it's a tragedy.

The reality is that we really don't know how it all got started, and if they are going to mention creationism, it wouldn't bother me if they threw it out there in a broad sense as one possibility because I guess it technically is possible. If we're going to speculate the big bang as one possibility, and if the school is going to mention creationism, it wouldn't kill me as long as they didn't Judeo-Christian it.

[milo]

That's "young earth Creationism". There is also "old earth Creationism" which holds that there was a (Biblically) indeterminate period of time between initial creation and where geneologies began (which is really how human things get dated by Bible readers), so if you want to say 4 Billion, that's fine. And OEC agrees with the demonstrable, empirical evidence of carbon dating, rock layers, astronomical observations, etc.
Hmmn. Traditionally, OEC is used to describe the belief that Genesis is a literal account of creation, but that a long time passed between Gen 1:1 a and 1:2. The rest of the story - special creation of all animal species in the Garden over a period of six days, expulsion from paradise, and a subsquent world-wide flood - are all believed to have occurred exactly as written in Genesis. That specific belief cannot be reconciled with empirical evidence for many reasons (geographic fossil distribution, sediment layers, plate tectonics, etc.).

I assume therefore that you are referring to some other creation story that can be so reconciled, and are using "old earth Creationism" in a loose sense to characterize that belief.

By the way, it seems absurd to blame this on Bush winning a second term. It may be more accurate to see both events as symptoms of the same set of underlying causes, but even that would be oversimplification.

[Gav]

My 10th grade biology teacher flat out laughed at the idea of creationism when he presented the theory of evolution. But he included the big bang into the more specific, more provable part of evolution, so I called him on that and he got pissed.

Called him on what? The big bang theory comes straight out of observation (the Hubble red shift), and is confirmed by the cosmic background radiation. It supplanted the earlier theory (steady state universe) because it's more provable.

(As a side note, I send my son to a religious school, and I'd be incensed if they taught creationism in science class; it'd probably be enough to have me pull him out of the school)

Gav

[magnet]

Yes actually, because while I appreciate the point you're making, the analogy is too absurd to be useful. We have a much better understanding of how illnesses attack the human body, and a much clearer way of researching those attacks than we do the big bang.

My biggest beef is that saying a big bang created the universe isn't really science, at least not in that broad sense. If you said that the universe is in flux, expanding and contracting, eventually collapsing on itself to the point of creating enough pressure to create a big bang. That's more scientific, but as far as I know, scientists really don't have a ton of evidence to really tell them exactly how the whole universe got started. Personally I wouldn't want creationism mentioned at all in schools, but if it's going to be mentioned, I don't think it's a tragedy.

I disagree with your characterization of scientific understanding.

Evolution is the best-tested theory in biology. The evidence for natural selection as the origin of species is better than theories that attempt to explain the origins of disease.

The evidence for the big bang is also very good. It is an observable fact that every single object in the universe is flying away from every other object in the universe RIGHT NOW. You can see this today (with the right telescope). The universe is also awash in a glow of energy. Suppose you have a videotape of the first few moments after the WTC attack. You see objects flying everywhere from the building and a uniform ball of fire. Even if you don't see the actual moment of impact, you would be foolish to conclude that the debris in the air didn't occur from an explosion. That's similar to what we see now in space: a cooling fireball and stuff flying away from us every which way.

You're right that we don't know what caused the big bang, or what went on before it. But watching the videotape, you might not know what caused the explosion. That doesn't negate the conclusion that an explosion happened.

[Midnight Son]

My problem with teaching creationism is that it isn't a SCIENCE. It is no more scientific that reading entrails or tarot cards. Putting it in a dress and calling it "Intelligent Design" changes nothing.

I don't doubt that most of you already know this, but I'll make it explicit:

Creationism is considered a science in order to compete against (and ultimately "defeat", in the best case scenario for its supporters) Evolution. It would lose a lot of power if it was pushed into the dreaded "religion" section or even into philosophy or culture.

So congrats to the school administrators... you've been manipulated.

Rove again smiles.

My point is that it's only considered a "science" by people who either don't know any better or have the "Jesusland" agenda to drive.

[Sidd_Budd]

Evolution is the best-tested theory in biology. The evidence for natural selection as the origin of species is better than theories that attempt to explain the origins of disease.

<Ed. note: Cut section on WTC causing explosion>
You're right that we don't know what caused the big bang, or what went on before it. But watching the videotape, you might not know what caused the explosion. That doesn't negate the conclusion that an explosion happened.

I find it difficult to believe evolution is the best tested theory in biology. You believe we have more direct evidence for evolution than we do for:
* our understanding of the determination of biological sex in mammals (X & Y chromosomes combinations)
* general principles of digestion & how animals absorb nutrients from food
* principles of cell meiosis & mitosis

In psychology, influences on behavior are sometimes divided into proximate and distal sources. A proximate influence on teenage aggression might be the presence/absence of adults (i.e., teens are more likely to aggress when no adults are present). A distal influence is the attitudes towards violence with which the teen was raised. As a general rule, we have more evidence for proximate theories than distal ones. They are easier to test experimentally, which allows for determination of cause and effect, and it's usually easier, cheaper, and more ethical to isolate a proximate influence for manipulation than a distal one.

Biology isn't my field, but I'm having a hard time understanding why the same principle doesn't apply. Theories involving distal causes in any field should always be more speculative than those involving proximate causes. Evolution, the big bang, and superstring theory are clearly the best explanations scientists currently have for their phenomena, but that doesn't mean they are the best-tested theories within biology, cosmology, and physics. There's more inductive logic involved with distal theories, and inductive logic involves probabilities, not certainty.

This leads me to your explanation of the big bang/WTC explosion, which is a little misleading as written. Because we are observing specific phenomena and inferring a general principle, we are using inductive logic. You can be reasonably certain (note the probabilistic statement) that an explosion occurred, but induction never produces conclusions that are definitely true or false. Only statements derived from deductive logic (reasoning from general principles to specific phenomena) work that way.

Boy, our 7-page intelligent design thread is already on Page 4 of P & R because of the election threads. About time we got back into it.

[magnet]

Evolution is the best-tested theory in biology. The evidence for natural selection as the origin of species is better than theories that attempt to explain the origins of disease.

<Ed. note: Cut section on WTC causing explosion>
You're right that we don't know what caused the big bang, or what went on before it. But watching the videotape, you might not know what caused the explosion. That doesn't negate the conclusion that an explosion happened.

I find it difficult to believe evolution is the best tested theory in biology. You believe we have more direct evidence for evolution than we do for:
* our understanding of the determination of biological sex in mammals (X & Y chromosomes combinations)
* general principles of digestion & how animals absorb nutrients from food
* principles of cell meiosis & mitosis

In psychology, influences on behavior are sometimes divided into proximate and distal sources. A proximate influence on teenage aggression might be the presence/absence of adults (i.e., teens are more likely to aggress when no adults are present). A distal influence is the attitudes towards violence with which the teen was raised. As a general rule, we have more evidence for proximate theories than distal ones. They are easier to test experimentally, which allows for determination of cause and effect, and it's usually easier, cheaper, and more ethical to isolate a proximate influence for manipulation than a distal one.

Biology isn't my field, but I'm having a hard time understanding why the same principle doesn't apply. Theories involving distal causes in any field should always be more speculative than those involving proximate causes. Evolution, the big bang, and superstring theory are clearly the best explanations scientists currently have for their phenomena, but that doesn't mean they are the best-tested theories within biology, cosmology, and physics. There's more inductive logic involved with distal theories, and inductive logic involves probabilities, not certainty.

This leads me to your explanation of the big bang/WTC explosion, which is a little misleading as written. Because we are observing specific phenomena and inferring a general principle, we are using inductive logic. You can be reasonably certain (note the probabilistic statement) that an explosion occurred, but induction never produces conclusions that are definitely true or false. Only statements derived from deductive logic (reasoning from general principles to specific phenomena) work that way.

Science is an evidence-based practice, and therefore always relies on inductive logic rather than deduction. You're right that inductive logic never provides complete certainty, but we rely on inductive logic every time we get up in the morning with the expectation that the world still exists. I didn't say you could be 100% certain of either the Big Bang or the WTC explosion, only that you would be foolish to conclude otherwise. If you rely solely on deductive logic to draw any reasonable conclusion then you won't get any farther than Descartes did.

I disagree that "theories involving distal causes in any field should always be more speculative than those involving proximate causes." This does not take into account the quality of evidence supporting a particular theory. While in psychology it may as simple as determining that "distal causes" = "worse evidence", it is not so simple in biology (and I suspect it is probably not so simple in psychology). Converging lines of evidence are much stronger than a single line of evidence. Of biological theories, evolution has by far the most converging evidence, from a variety of otherwise unrelated fields. In comparison, theories regarding sex characteristics, digestion, etc. are supported by a much smaller set of data. To put it another way: based on current evidence it would be much easier to logically overturn what we know about digestion than what we know about evolution.

[awdougherty]

Called him on what? The big bang theory comes straight out of observation (the Hubble red shift), and is confirmed by the cosmic background radiation. It supplanted the earlier theory (steady state universe) because it's more provable.


He linked the validity of the big bang theory with the validity of evolution, which I see as significantly more supported. I see them as separate theories with their own support. The evidence that supports evolution so well doesn't also make the big bang as well supported. I pointed that out to him and he got pissed.

[MikeSofaer]

I can't write down a thermodynamic equation describing exactly how the molecules that make up a virus kill you, but I know people who could. That's not far removed from reducing infectious disease studies to physics, which in my mind is a very strong place for a biochemical theory to be.

We know a lot about evolution, but we can't even predict how a given DNA base change will alter an organism, much less write down biological evolution in terms of basic physics.

So I think claiming evolution is better understood than infectious disease is silly.

[magnet]

Called him on what? The big bang theory comes straight out of observation (the Hubble red shift), and is confirmed by the cosmic background radiation. It supplanted the earlier theory (steady state universe) because it's more provable.


He linked the validity of the big bang theory with the validity of evolution, which I see as significantly more supported. I see them as separate theories with their own support. The evidence that supports evolution so well doesn't also make the big bang as well supported. I pointed that out to him and he got pissed.
You're quite right. He should have realized you could have one without the other, given The Origin of Species was published in 1859 while the Big Bang wasn't suggested until 1927.

[magnet]

I can't write down a thermodynamic equation describing exactly how the molecules that make up a virus kill you, but I know people who could. That's not far removed from reducing infectious disease studies to physics, which in my mind is a very strong place for a biochemical theory to be.

We know a lot about evolution, but we can't even predict how a given DNA base change will alter an organism, much less write down biological evolution in terms of basic physics.

So I think claiming evolution is better understood than infectious disease is silly.
Certainly some people have analyzed some of the lethal proteins made by bacteria and viruses with physical chemistry. This is an important feature of rational drug design, but does not constitute a complete understanding of the entire organism. For example, nobody can derive from first principles the infectious dose of an inhaled virus, or its likelihood of developing resistance. It's the equivalent of predicting a war's outcome by running ballistics tests on firearms.

Conversely, I can name several DNA base changes which have very defined effects on organisms. Sickle cell disease, for example, is caused by a single mutant base pair. The sickle cell allele has predictable frequencies in different parts of the world. Its variable frequency can only be described in a satisfactory fashion using Darwinian principles (it confers malaria resistance in areas where it is frequent).

The relative stasis of infectious disease theory should not be confused with completeness or accuracy. It's important to note that until recently infectious disease specialists have stridently maintained that all infectious agents had to contain nucleic acids. In 1982, Stanley Prusiner proposed that proteins could behave as infectious particles, and his views were seen as heretical and endured vicious criticism.

Fast forward to 1997: the prion theory of transmission for diseases like BSE is now accepted, infectious disease has undergone a serious revamping, and Prusiner is about $1 million richer thanks to his Nobel prize.

[MikeSofaer]

I think you probably could derive a lethal dosage number on a virus from first principles, but I'm not sure. It's probably not actually that hard, since it's a question of getting a single host cell infected, for a nasty one like Ebola.

On the single base pair, I meant prediction of what would happen if you altered an arbitrary base pair, not finding an example case where the answer is known.

Anyway, I believe both things simultaneously before breakfast, so it's no big deal.

[Sidd_Budd]

Of biological theories, evolution has by far the most converging evidence, from a variety of otherwise unrelated fields. In comparison, theories regarding sex characteristics, digestion, etc. are supported by a much smaller set of data. To put it another way: based on current evidence it would be much easier to logically overturn what we know about digestion than what we know about evolution.

I appreciate the discussion, but am still unconvinced. In 25 years I'll ask the faculty of the biology department of wherever I'm teaching whether we've seen more changes in the theory of biological sex determination or evolutionary theory in the last quarter century. You ask the same question to 5-10 of your colleagues.

If most folks say evolutionary theory has changed less, I'll buy you a beer, and teleport it to where you are using my personal teleporter.

[Qenan]

Changes in the theory of evolution don't equate to less certainty that evolution took place. Parts of evolutionary theory (e.g., theoretical population genetics) are extremely complex. As biologists develop more a more sophisticated understanding of evolution, new models will arise that better explain the diversity around us. This is analogous to physics -- discovering new particles doesn't invalidate our existing understanding of physics, or disprove the idea of physics.

Evolution is also a historical science, in part, and our picture of history will always be incomplete (and in places wrong).

But the core ideas of evolution have far more evidence than any other general theory within biology. Moreover, given our current understanding of genetics, evolution pretty much has to occur -- so long as there is differential propagation of genes, the gene frequencies will change over time. Combine that with mutation and it requires a lot of special pleading to believe that a biological population wouldn't evolve over time.

[magnet]

Of biological theories, evolution has by far the most converging evidence, from a variety of otherwise unrelated fields. In comparison, theories regarding sex characteristics, digestion, etc. are supported by a much smaller set of data. To put it another way: based on current evidence it would be much easier to logically overturn what we know about digestion than what we know about evolution.

I appreciate the discussion, but am still unconvinced. In 25 years I'll ask the faculty of the biology department of wherever I'm teaching whether we've seen more changes in the theory of biological sex determination or evolutionary theory in the last quarter century. You ask the same question to 5-10 of your colleagues.

If most folks say evolutionary theory has changed less, I'll buy you a beer, and teleport it to where you are using my personal teleporter.
Ok, but if you think that current thought regarding the development of sex characteristics is completely static then you are mistaken. While it's clear that one gene on the Y chromosome is responsible for gonadal differences between males and females, its mechanism of action is unclear.

Furthermore, there's a host of other sex-related morphologic differences that are of uncertain origin. There's quite a bit of debate regarding which genes, possibly carried on the X chromosome, are responsible for various secondary sexual characteristics.

Then there's also the issue of sex-related behavior, which may be genetic or may have a congenital or environmental basis.

[Euri]

All the biological sciences are based on principles of Evolution, and studying one is simply gathering evidence for the whole.

The principle of evolution, that live evolves, is an undeniably proven fact. From minute, non-expressed mutations, up to speciation.. it's all observed time and again in nature and in the lab.

Now, the theory of evolution as it relates to common descent is not directly observable, because we can't go back in time. We can only look to genetic evidence, fossil evidence, climate evidence.. well only may be a bad word, there is a LOT of evidence for common descent, and we are digging up more and more every day.

Regardless, to deny evolution is hilariously ignorant. The entire world, without regard to race, religion, creed, or culture accepts and uses the theory. There are nitpicks, and there are still a LOT of uknowns that are being fiercely debated and studied (this is what science is supposed to do) but the principles are all undeniably true.

It is also disingenuous to relate evolution to things like the big bang, or theories from the bleeding edge of particle physics. We've been observing, testing, and confirming evolution for centuries. Darwin wasn't the first person to come up with the idea, just the first one to publish a detailed analysis of evolution in action.

[shift6]

Break it down any way you want, teaching Creationism as a scientific theory of any sort is insane. It's a wonderful religious allegory, folks, and you can fit science into it just fine if you really want to. But teaching Creationism *as* science? Wow. It's absolutely stunning that this is happening in the US, in 2004. Enjoy the next four years, folks.
I think just about everyone here acknowledges that this has been a problem for quite a bit longer than Bush has been president. I'm just sayin'.

However, I could be talking out of my ass because I still hold that the Earth is flat
It is, if you consider spherical geometry. :wink:

Hmmn. Traditionally, OEC is used to describe the belief that Genesis is a literal account of creation, but that a long time passed between Gen 1:1 a and 1:2. The rest of the story - special creation of all animal species in the Garden over a period of six days, expulsion from paradise, and a subsquent world-wide flood - are all believed to have occurred exactly as written in Genesis. That specific belief cannot be reconciled with empirical evidence for many reasons (geographic fossil distribution, sediment layers, plate tectonics, etc.).

I assume therefore that you are referring to some other creation story that can be so reconciled, and are using "old earth Creationism" in a loose sense to characterize that belief.
I have found that the hordes of scientists who believe in "creation followed by evolution because Genesis is metaphorical" are OECs. That's not really a loose characterization. There are some OECs (like myself) who believe that alot more than "time" occurred between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. Things like fantastic animals and plants and all that "Satan being cast down from heaven" stuff from Isaiah and Ezekiel and such.

YECs are the pretty hardcore (goofy) ones with humans and dinosaurs living together and shit.

Called him on what? The big bang theory comes straight out of observation (the Hubble red shift), and is confirmed by the cosmic background radiation. It supplanted the earlier theory (steady state universe) because it's more provable.
Big bang has its own problems as well, though. And in this case, observations seem to come out every couple years showing problems with "regular" Big Bang and allowing for research into other scientific theories such as a Plasma Cosmology version of the old "Steady State" and so forth. Not that this counters anything you said, I'm just throwing it out here. Heheh.

It is an observable fact that every single object in the universe is flying away from every other object in the universe RIGHT NOW.
Well, it is a fact that most things in the universe have a redshift from us. Most cosmologists think this is caused by the "flying away" but there are other explanations in the scientific mix. See above. I think your calling it foolish to think the Big Bang model may be wrong illustrates exactly the problem with ingrained, dogmatic science. In fact, cosmologists don't have the same zealous dedication that biologists do to evolution, but hey.

We've been observing, testing, and confirming evolution for centuries.
Wow. I don't think even Partlett would make a claim like this.

[MikeSofaer]

Tim may be your evolutionary nemesis, but he's done nothing to deserve the use of "even Partlett wouldn't". Play nice.

[shift6]

There's nothing spiteful or negative intended there. I view Tim (I used his last name to distinguish him from the other Tims on QT3, and the Enchanter named Tim) as simply the staunchest supporter of evolution in the other thread. I think others would agree. So here, I am saying I don't think even the staunchest QT3 supporter of evolution would make such a statement as this.

In hindsight, though, I expect I'll be backpedalling soon enough. After all, "centuries" as Euri wrote could mean a measly 200 years. And yeah, science has been looking at evolution pretty closely for at least that very minimum length of time. I had, you know, some 800+ years thought in mind which of course would not be the case. <shrug>

[Tyjenks]

I'm going with Greg Bear's theory: societal pressures start a virus that has been hibernating in your DNA for centuries and then evolutionary leaps occur which explain the lack of an all-encompassing fossil history of man. It could happen.

[antlers]

To summarize my point from the ID thread: Science is about finding natural explanations. Relying on supernatural explanations for observed phenomenon is what we did before science, and it wasn't very successful, especially in comparison with science. If you want to have a science class, you shouldn't be talking about supernatural explanations.

[Midnight Son]

I'm going with Greg Bear's theory: societal pressures start a virus that has been hibernating in your DNA for centuries and then evolutionary leaps occur which explain the lack of an all-encompassing fossil history of man. It could happen.

Darwin's Radio, was it?

[MikeSofaer]

Yes. Darwin's Radio. It's the wireless revolution, broadband for everyone. IN YOUR SKULL!