Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science in Public Schools
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 16 of 42 (190371)
03-06-2005 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by jbthree
03-06-2005 9:01 PM


Re: Quotes
I doubt it. If the framers of Public Education are serious about truth in education, they would include authoritative statements like these to offset the claims of fact.
I think you need to read my post again.
I do NOT think that these offset the claims of fact. I would be interested in your logic that shows how they do.
I know that some are wrong. Others appear to be misleading. I think some are dishonestly lifted from their context.
The reason why this isn't included is they are minor details in the big picture without time to cover them, they are not countering anything about evolution and/or they are wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jbthree, posted 03-06-2005 9:01 PM jbthree has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 17 of 42 (190372)
03-06-2005 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jbthree
03-06-2005 9:23 PM


Explosion
Could you use [ qs ] tags to format quotes of other peoples stuff. You can use peek to see how that is done. Thanks.
You are operating under a misunderstanding. The "explosion" was several 10's of millions of years long. There doesn't appear to be a major mystery now that we have more facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jbthree, posted 03-06-2005 9:23 PM jbthree has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 18 of 42 (190379)
03-06-2005 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by jbthree
03-06-2005 9:01 PM


Where's the Evidence Mentioned in the Opening Post?
I already said this in Message 9, but since you didn't reply I raise the same question again.
In your opening post you said:
Jbthree writes:
I have noticed strong evidences which seem to support creation, global flood, young earth, etc.
But you haven't offered any examples of evidence for these things, only the opinion that some issues in evolution represent "problems".
As I said before, public school science classrooms are for teaching prevailing views within science. It is not a prevailing view within science that the Cambrian explosion is a problem for evolution, which is the opinion you would like taught. The only way for that to happen is for Creationists to take their views to the halls of science and persuade scientists so that these become the prevailing views within science. Right now they are only the prevailing views within a conservative Christian sect.
The mystery of the Cambrian explosion is how it happened that all the major animal phyla emerged in such a short span of time. That we have no firm answers as yet has not caused scientists to question evolution.
You are just as aware as I of the many evolutionists who have abandoned gradualism in favor of other theories (i.e. Punctulated Equilibria, Directed Pan Spermia, etc.)
Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are both views within evolution. Abandoning one for the other does not call evolution into question, and Gould's punctuated equilibrium is actually just an application to the science of paleontology of an idea already current within evolution. That evolutionary change can be episodic was already known before Gould came on the scene to find applications to the fossil record.
Your quotes are intended to make it seem as if science sees the Cambrian explosion as a great challenge to the validity of evolutionary theory, and you would be conveying a false impression in public school science classrooms were you to use them in the way you would like. But I see no problem using these quotes as long as they're used to convey what the scientific community thinks, rather than what the evangelical community thinks.
The misleading nature of quotes drawn out of context is why quote mining is not endorsed here at EvC Forum.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jbthree, posted 03-06-2005 9:01 PM jbthree has not replied

bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 19 of 42 (190380)
03-06-2005 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jbthree
03-06-2005 9:23 PM


back to post #1
Jbthree in post #1 writes:
Having read through some of the articles in these forums, I have noticed strong evidences which seem to support creation, global flood, young earth, etc.
While the discussion of the cambrian/precambrian explosion is interesting it does not really address evidences to support creation, global flood or a young earth. Can you provide some of this evidence or at least links to it since you have read that evidence in this forum.
Thanks in advance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jbthree, posted 03-06-2005 9:23 PM jbthree has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 20 of 42 (190396)
03-07-2005 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jbthree
03-05-2005 7:51 AM


Jbthree writes:
quote:
I have noticed strong evidences which seem to support creation, global flood, young earth, etc.
Allow me to join the chorus of, "Like what?"
By my experience, there is no evidence in support of creation. A search of the various journals of science finds not a single article that supports creationism. Instead, they all support evolution.
By mathematics, it is topologically impossible to flood the globe (Hint: How do you propose to take the 97% of the earth's total water which is below sea level, stick it above sea level, and manage to keep it there for 150 days?)
By physics, the earth is not young.
quote:
As long as such evidences are religion free (no Bible, no God, etc.), should they be admitted and taught in Public School Science Curricula?
No, because they are false.
You wouldn't have us teach that pi is equal to three in mathematics class, would you? You wouldn't have us teach that there are -ur verbs in Spanish class, would you? You wouldn't have us teach that The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was written by Plato, would you?
So if you wouldn't have us teach things that aren't true in any other class, why are you picking on biology class?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jbthree, posted 03-05-2005 7:51 AM jbthree has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 21 of 42 (190406)
03-07-2005 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by jbthree
03-06-2005 9:23 PM


Well I guess that you should read my post agin since it did include a possible explanation - and a link to one of hte no-longer missing fossils that have been found by follwing up on that explanation.
And given the dismissive tone of your response I have to ask whether in fact you care about the accuracy of education. If not then I want to knwo why you ignroe information that is inconveneint to your cause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jbthree, posted 03-06-2005 9:23 PM jbthree has not replied

hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 22 of 42 (190551)
03-07-2005 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by NosyNed
03-06-2005 6:35 PM


Re: Quotes
For the rest of what Dawkins actually said...
"Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason is that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize."
As a biology teacher and a firm believer in the importance of teaching our children to think rationally and not dogmatically, I am glad so many people on this site profess objective rationality over subjectively emotional dishonesty and faith-mongering. Thank you.
As far as teaching evolution goes, the biology curriculum itself makes no sense without evolution. It is intertwined with every other subject, from biochemistry to cells to genetics to classification to ecology. Earth science makes no sense unless Earth is old as the rocks tell us It is. I looked through my binders of lessons and activities and tried to remove everything that was connected to evolution and found a bunch of disconnected facts that screamed for an explanation. Facts are what they are, rational discourse used to come up with explanations for these facts and their relationships to other facts and natural phenomena is what science education, what all education, is about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 03-06-2005 6:35 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Brad McFall, posted 03-08-2005 7:23 PM hitchy has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 23 of 42 (190687)
03-08-2005 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by hitchy
03-07-2005 11:47 PM


Re: Quotes
I would not have had ANY prob with Dawkins' description of this implosion in evo thought if he had not used the phrase "planting" because as he sought to have the reason BE probably that it is because of less hard parts in the predominant creatures of this horizon (by using the word "plant" most people dont have a botanists mind seeking the difference of woody tissue vs others) and thus he subtly leads *before* the conclusion to a conclusion{as to why and how what's missing is missing}.
What seems more equitable seems to me to say that the intuition is more like a dream than a connotation restraint on the denotation but as that is harder to comprehend it might that Dakwins had futher grammeteological presights I have not noticed.
Agassiz wrote of his teacher Oken,
quote:
"Among the most fascinating of our professors was Oken. A master in the art of teaching, he excersided an almost irresistable influence over his students. Constructing the universe out of his own brain, deducing from a priori conceptions all the relations of the three kingdoms into which he divided al living beings, classifying the animals as if by magic, in accordance with an analogy based on the dismembered body of man,it seemed to us who listened that the slow laborious process of accumulating precise detailed knowledge could only be the work of drones, while a generous commanding spirit might build the world out of its own powerful imagination."
page152 Louis Agassiz His Life and Correspondence vol 1.
The "influence" of Dawkins misleads the biologist in care of the difference of plants and animals. Sure he could not be read to create his reading out of his brain as if by magic but it is thus to me if I am to think of the critters as plants. There is need to think of plants and animals as one but it is not with the issue of hard outsides for this might actually be inside plants, but I digress. Even if that was what Dakwins thought I would still quote the "Dream" of Agassiz vs slight of language in the teaching. Dawkins was discussing "drone" stuff but managed to make the homology into the universe of the most powerful imagination.FYI This might be the quote from which Gould wondered in interview if some naturalist scienists might be armchairs!
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-08-2005 19:25 AM
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-08-2005 19:29 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by hitchy, posted 03-07-2005 11:47 PM hitchy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by hitchy, posted 03-08-2005 10:12 PM Brad McFall has replied

hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 24 of 42 (190689)
03-08-2005 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Brad McFall
03-08-2005 7:23 PM


Re: Quotes
Bear with me, I am still trying to figure out what you are talking about. Are you saying that Dawkins was talking about plants not being fossilized? The "planting" from Dawkin's quote was in reference to the prior sentence "It is as though they {major invertebrate groups from the Cambrian explosion} were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." This sentence was the last line in a quote used out of context to try and show that leading evolutionary thinkers have problems with evolution.
As far as the rest of your message is concerned, all of science relies on "drone" stuff--the accumulation of factual data. But like I and others have said before, we need explanations for these facts and how they relate to other facts and natural phenomena. I am eternally grateful that people like Dawkins can do this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Brad McFall, posted 03-08-2005 7:23 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Brad McFall, posted 03-08-2005 10:46 PM hitchy has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 25 of 42 (190693)
03-08-2005 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by hitchy
03-08-2005 10:12 PM


Re: Quotes
Yes it would be incorrect to take the quote out of context. And yes it was merely refering to the large number of different kinds of invertebrates.
I was only trying to give Richard the benefit of the doubt by using the word "planting", for you see, in a debate with Will Provine in the mid90s Phil Johnson's whole point was that the Cambrian Phyla looked more like many seperate lines rather than a branching tree, so... it holds no weight for me -that Richard D simply glosses this over ^by reference^ to what creationists like to think. The important thing was that he felt the reason in part that the data looked like that was because there were a lot more soft creatures proportionally in that horizon than say one with lots of bones and that the material was not fossilized therefore in comparison. This is what Agassiz meant by drone"" work(determing what fossils are in what horizons and how many there are etc). At that time Agassiz was talking about the painstaking work of paleoichtyhology and not fossil Cambrian invertebrates however.
I was taking issue with Dakwins' attempt to TAKE from creationist thought, the notion of geometry of the data IN THE UNIVERSAL sense that the data IS TAKEN by creationists. If the weight of counterpoint is that it is the scientists any way who are responsble for the labor there is no need to address the larger system of thought operative asthe issue is rather meaningless once one recognizes that if the drones didnt chip bit by bit of the fossils the grand schemers would have no thoughts to organize. So regardless if the issue was only taking a quote out of context this analysis is unecessary. I just wondered if Dr. Dawkins hadnt first taken the use of the word "planting" rather out of creationist wordings foremost. Johnson doesnt make that a point, I dont think, if I recall correctly. If he had simply referred to the cambrian phyla as "more diverse" I probably wouldnt have noticed.
Does that help to make what I meant clearer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by hitchy, posted 03-08-2005 10:12 PM hitchy has not replied

ProfessorR
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 42 (204357)
05-02-2005 3:09 PM


Hi Jbthree,
I agree with others (particularly, with Rrhain) that there exists no scientific evidence supporting such ideas as a "boom, it happened"-like creation of something from nothing, or of the truly global flood, or of the idea that the planet Earth is just a few thousand years old. Therefore, these "evidences" cannot be parts of something taught in *science* classes - and not because they support or not support some religious doctrine, but because they are simply not scientifically valid.
I am a professional scientist - researcher in molecular immunology and a college biology teacher with ~9 years of teaching classes in US colleges. On the other hand, I am a faithful Christian who serves as an elder in an oldline Protestant church and who absolutely loves the Bible. May I, in this regard, give you an advice? Don't trust creationist Web sites. They lie a lot. Partly because their authors intend to, partly because of a deep ignorance of their contributors. I am particularly amazed when I read materials "supporting" the idea of the "young earth" and "arguing" against radiometric dating. My eyes want to pop when I read creationists' interpretations of statistics, esp. linear regression method. Students who attend my university would get F's for having gaps in their knowledge that big.
Peace,
Richard
{Richard - Please use the reply button at the bottom of the specific message, if you are replying to a specific message (which you appear to be doing here). That way links to/from links are put in place. - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-02-2005 03:47 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by gnojek, posted 05-02-2005 6:01 PM ProfessorR has replied

gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 42 (204390)
05-02-2005 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by ProfessorR
05-02-2005 3:09 PM


ProfessorR writes:
there exists no scientific evidence supporting such ideas as a "boom, it happened"
What? No Big Bang?
JK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ProfessorR, posted 05-02-2005 3:09 PM ProfessorR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by ProfessorR, posted 05-02-2005 6:19 PM gnojek has replied

ProfessorR
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 42 (204393)
05-02-2005 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by gnojek
05-02-2005 6:01 PM


Hi JK,
Regarding Big Bang, I don't know, not being an expert. From what I read, I guess the evidence is very indirect, based on the speed of divergence of galaxies etc.
What I meant by absence of evidence supporting "boom, it happened" kind of creation is that there are no such observations in biology that would support an idea of an immediate and forever "fixed" arrival of a ready species. The notion of such appearance or arrival was deduced from the sacred writings but never supported by any empirical evidence.
Richard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by gnojek, posted 05-02-2005 6:01 PM gnojek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by gnojek, posted 05-03-2005 1:00 PM ProfessorR has not replied

gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 42 (204670)
05-03-2005 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by ProfessorR
05-02-2005 6:19 PM


Oh JK was "just kidding."
There is a lot of evidence to support a big bang.
The Hubble Ultra Deep Field has shown that galaxies 13 bya were not like present galaxies and were most likely the first galaxies.
The CMB is pretty much the way BB theory would predict.
I've heard BB detractors say that inflationary BB predicts anisotrpies closer to 1:10,000 not the 1:100,000 range that is observed, but I don't know enough about it to say one way or another.
Anyway, there are a lot of things that suggest that space is expanding and that it has been doing so from an original, much smaller state.
Let's not forget about Olber's paradox.
An infinite universe also causes other paradoxes like the Gravitational Paradox and the Thermodynamic Paradox.
I don't think we'll ever have 'direct' evidence of the BB, unless we can get a telescope that can peer into the "dark ages" of the universe, but the universe sure looks finite.
Well, whatever, I've got no dispute with the fact that there is no evidence, direct or indirect, of an instantaneous creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ProfessorR, posted 05-02-2005 6:19 PM ProfessorR has not replied

SuperDave
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 42 (205776)
05-07-2005 12:44 AM


Cambrian vs Pre-Cambrian vs modern forms
In my opinion, the greatest benefit that I ever got from studying the notion of how many marine fossils from the Cambrian appear to have strikingly modern forms is simply this: the ocean has been providing a very comparably stable environment for hundreds of millions of years. The reasons that these forms appear modern is because modern forms never had to change much to maintain survivability in such a stable habitat.
I have always felt this supported evolution much more than it could ever be used as an argument against it.

"When in argument, those who call upon authority use not their intellevt, but rather their memory."-----Leonardo daVinci

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024