To "Hitchy"--Creation discussion with high school science teacher

Thanks for getting back to me, servant. I also appreciate everyone else's input. I will be addressing you as much as my schedule will allow right now and ask for everyone's patience ahead of time.Let's start with my intro--I am a he and I consider myself a rational skeptic. I question evolution as much as anyone else. However, the more I question everything that would fall under the umbrella of evolution, the more I see how factual certain aspects are. For example, the theory of common descent is pretty much a fact. If I limit myself to a purely scientific viewpoint, then there is no way I can say that we do not share a common ancestor with every other organism out there and that there is a nested hierarchy that shows how organisms are interrelated. The evidence for common descent is so overwhelming that to decry it as false after seeing the evidence is academically dishonest.Now, if I go outside the boundaries of science--which would then make my endevor non-scientific--I could come up with any explanation I want. Science is what scientists do. We come up with naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena that is verifiable (testable), falsifiable, and based on natural laws. I we go outside of the strict definition of science then the whole field becomes bankrupt for lack of not only boundaries to what we can know but also a foundation on which we can build our knowledge. I cannot back up anything with the Upanishads or the Bahatva-Gida (I think that's how they are spelled). I am certain that you would balk at anything I bring up from any other religious tradition, so please don't attempt to intertwine the bible with science.The biological species concept might have difficulty dealing with certain organisms intrabreeding and with asexually reproducing organisms, but it is a working scientific definition with great explanatory power. "Kind" means nothing in scientific circles. "Kind" is as subjective as the religion that spawned it. Please, let's not waste anymore time on a term that is useless, since that will make the argument useless. Time for class. More later...

On Monday, I began my unit on evolution with my 9th grade biology classes. Evolution is one of the five major units I am required to teach in Maryland. The other units are Biochemistry, Cells, Genetics and Ecology with the nature of science and the scientific method used throughout the year. We had just finished gene expression on friday, so we talked about how point mutations, chromosomal abnormalities and polyploidy leads to passing on traits to offspring that will make them different from the rest of the population.We talked about Lamark yesterday and discussed why his assumptions were wrong. I made sure, though, that the students didn't belittle Lamarck and his ideas b/c he did not have the information we have now about genetics. Granted Darwin didn't have the genetic info either, but we will talk about his basic ideas today.Hopefully by the end of the week we will be talking about the main lines of evidence for evolution--fossil evidence, biochemical evidence and anatomical/developmental evidence.This is how I teach my children about one of the most robust theories in science. My students have also learned what science is, how it works and how the terminology (fact, hypothesis, theory, law) is used.Of course, some of my students have already raised objections to learning about evolution. As usual, the objections are based on common misconceptions, like "humans from monkeys". Also, I heard one of my Baptist students (I attended some Southern Baptist services last fall in order to understand some of the culture pressures against education put forth by some members of our community) say that her preacher said that evolution was "an evil lie". I have heard the same man preach before and do not doubt that he could say such a thing. All I asked the students to do was to try to put aside any preconceived notions they had about evolution until we looked at it in depth. We shall see what happens.So, what's my point? Well, I am a teacher of teenagers in a public school. I dispense information and try to get the students to think critically and gain some appreciation, if not love, of learning. This is my background. I have fought before and will continually fight against anyone and anything that tries to prevert the teaching of actual science in public schools.Since I am not an expert in cosmology or astronomy or astrophysics, I will defer your attacks on the Big Bang, the evolution of stars, and the evolution of the elements to others with more knowledge in those fields than I.Anything dealing with biological evolution is fair game. I have already answered your assertions about kinds in a previous thread. Talk to you later.

Speciation has been observed in many plants and animals. This link gives a brief overview of several speciation events--Observed Instances of SpeciationNow, I know that talkorigins is obviously biased towards the science end of things, but since we are talking about teaching science and not religion, I think the site holds up very well. Even if you have a problem using the talkorigin site just simply look up the studies and experiments the page talks about.We have to agree on the taxons we are talking about. My beef with kinds is that it is too subjective. Some people say it means species, some genera, and some say families. So, we need an objective reference point b/c if "kind" is equivalent to family, then a speciation event that results in a novel species could just be producing the same "kind" even though a new species has been created. We need to be on the same page here. Thanks for your feedback. Time for class.

quote:

---

the only things that should be discussed exclusively in the science classroom are the fossils, the geologic strata, the characteristics of species of animals and plants both living and extinct, the anatomy of humans and animals, the factual and empirically-observed elements of our solar system, the observable processes of nature such as photosynthesis and the decays of radioactive elements, and the behavior of elements, ions, and ionic compounds

---

The problem I have with the laundry list above is that memorizing facts and just parroting them back is not an education. The students have to do something with the facts. Theories are explanations of the facts/observations. That is why they are used in science.The grass is green. OK, what does that tell me? Am I limited to just knowing that the grass is green? Wouldn't it be better to say "OK, the grass is green. What makes it green? What does the green stuff do for the grass? Why does the grass reflect green wavelengths of light? What are the interrelationships between the grass and the other organisms in its ecosystem? How is the grass related to other organisms? How did the grass become the grass we see today?"Which is the greater endevour--memorizing or applying?

Just nod if you can hear me,
Is there anyone home?Ok, no more Pink Floyd. Anyway, are we still talking here, servent? Since I have nothing new to comment on, I'll just go back to the beginning...message 12!?!

quote:

---

The risk of not believing in evolution--whether it be true or not--is dying while feeling ridiculed and mocked by "educated people"... but the risk of not following Christ and believing that God made us all the way we are is dying and facing eternity in hell

---

According to your worldview, I am going to hell. Are you sure that there is such a place? And what type of place is this? Will I see Darwin and Gould there? Time for class...

Sorry to bother your sensibilities. Just making sure this is going somewhere. I have been away and busy also. Anyway...

quote:

---

Science is, as you probably know, defined as knowledge gained through what can be observed, tested, and demonstrated.

---

Not a bad definition, but what is "knowledge"? Even when I was growing up the memorization of facts was emphasized more than the intergration and understanding of ideas. However, now we know as educators that in order for our students to be successful, they must be taught how to think. (Notice that I didn't say "what to think") Critical thinking skills better prepare people to cope with and thrive in the everchanging world around us than does the memorization of facts. Besides, most of us are thinking animals. We are "why?" machines.Since the beginning of time, humans have attempted to explain natural occurances. Deities, spirits and other subjective "subjects" were easy to use as reasons for occurances. Something good happens--a good spirit helped. Something bad happens--a bad spirit is to blame. Simple, direct, to the point--if everyone can agreed on the same spirits.If God A brings rain and God B brings drought, then praying to God A will bring rain and praying to God B will bring drought. Your neighbor says that God A brings drought and God B brings rain. So, what happens? Do the prayers cancel out? Do you get rain sometimes and drought at other times? No matter what happens, one God will be praised and another one cursed or appeased. You praise God A, your neighbor praises God B. You think the rain was caused by one thing, your neighbor sees a different cause.Nowadays, I don't have to worry about which God brings rain b/c science has provided objective insight into the workings of the natural world. I know that water evaporates from the oceans and rises into the atmosphere until it cools off enough to reach its dew point. It then condenses in fine water droplets or ice crystals that form clouds. Once the cloud is saturated and the water droplets are big enough, they fall as precipitation.Numerous laws and theories can be used to objectively explain why all of the above processes happen as they do. You can still say it was such and such, but that doesn't matter b/c we have an objective explanation of the events that can be tested and verified over and over again. I can also make predictions from the information.Now, you would probably say that the scientific explanation of what causes rain is different from evolution or natural selection. Precipitation is a fact, but what has to happen to cause the precipitation to form requires an explanation of the facts. In this way the theories of evolution and natural selection and common descent are as valid as the laws and theories that make up each tiny step in the formation of precipitation. What is more satisfying and useful--saying that something is or explaining what it is and how it came to be?Simply put, science is not just a body of facts, it is a process and as humans we want to explain the how's and why's of these processes. You just want the "why" to be a Christian god.{Put why in quotes above in edit}[This message has been edited by hitchy, 04-13-2004]

...fit the evidence you have provided the best while making the least amount of assumptions. For example,

quote:

---

evolution by means of natural selection is in the past as far as we know

---

Actually, there are observed instances of evolution (change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time) by natural selection. Examples are drug-resistant bacteria, nylon-eating bacteria, mice on the island of Maderia, fruit-flies in the laboratory, etc. Besides, just b/c something happened in the past does not mean that we cannot detect the evidence left behind by that event.Many things have happened in the past--extinctions, ice age glaciations, sedimentation, tectonic plate movements, meteor impacts, etc.--that have left evidence as to their occurances. How do we know they happened? We have mountains of evidence for their occurances. Evolution would not have lasted this long if it was not backed up by mountains of evidence.

quote:

---

Well first off, I'd like to point out that, in most areas of the world in which geologic deposition of strata had been observed, the layers are stacked one on top of another without any evidence whatsoever of enough time allowing for erosion in between (look at the layers at the John Day Fossil Beds of eastern Oregon, the strata of Joggins Nova Scotia, the Grand Canyon, the sandstone deposits along both the east and west coast, or any cliffside in which strata-layers can be seen, and you will find that the layers are 1) overlapping in some parts or 2) neatly-stacked on top of one another without ANY evidence of years'-worth of erosion in between... Both cases would support the idea that such strata were laid down at one point in time).

---

Actually, the evidence does not support the notion that they were laid down at the same time. Sedimentary rocks, which are the most abundant rocks on the surface of the planet and that make up the examples you cited above, are laid down in water or are formed from mudslides or other forms of mass wasting. The sediments are then cemented or compacted over thousands and millions of years. The unconformities and disconformities you are looking for only occur if the waters recede and surface erosion occurs. The different layers of sedimentary rock show a change in what sediments were being deposited usually without erosion occurring between the layers, not that they were laid down and sorted at the same time. Besides, if they were sorted at the same time, why do we find no evidence of sorting from large particle size at the bottom to smaller particle size at the top. In most instances, the sedimentary rock layers show fine grained limestones under larger grained sandstones and large chunks of rock in conglomerate on top of fine grained shales.Contrary to your point about no disconformities--the Grand Canyon shows disconformities. You just have to know what to look for. Back with more in a bit...{Stuff added by edit--I cleaned up the last two paragraphs above and added the following}Also, evolution does not say anything about geology. Evidence from geology and many other diverse scientific fields provide corroboration for the explanations put forth by evolutionary biologists. That is the sign of a robust theory. No geologic evidence supports a worldwide flood. All the evidence points to a 4 to 5 billion year old planet that has undergone gradual changes and catastrophes throughout its long duration. However, catastrophism is not the answer. Most geologic processes occur slowly. Time for a lacrosse game...[This message has been edited by hitchy, 04-16-2004]

Good morning! What a beautiful day! Breathe deeply for everyday we inhale history

quote:

---

I am not denying the existence of natural selection (out with the bad, in with the new). However, adaptation and variation does not necessarily add up to evolution.

---

I am a little confused. Please bear with me as I try to sort this out. You do not deny natural selection. So, that means you cannot deny the components of natural selection--1) Variations within populations.
2) More organisms being produced than will survive.
3) Environmental pressures on survival and reproduction.
4) Most fit/best adapted individuals live long enough to reproduce and pass on their genes.
5) Most fit/best adapted genes become more prevalent in the population.If natural selection is the main adaptive mechanism of evolution, then how can you say variations and adaptations do not add up to evolution (change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time)? Other mechanisms also cause evolutionary changes--genetic drift, founder principle, neutral mutations--although they are nonadaptive. What would you say about these mechanisms?

quote:

---

The changes we see today do not offer evidence that such changes had been going on for more than the few thousand years since the Flood.

---

Do you believe these "changes" are the result of a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time? The peppered moth showed this change. The higher incidence of sickle-cell anemia in areas of malaria also shows this change. You do not deny the changes occurring through natural selection, you just deny the time frame, right!?!

quote:

---

Yes, it is effective in terms of education to apply the knowledge discussed, but there exist much less controversial and much more scientifically-supported theories and processes to approach than evolution.

---

Any teachers out there at the middle/high school level have probably had their share of controversial topics brought up in class. Sometimes the student has a legitimate question and sees you as someone who can give a worthwhile response. Other times the student is being purposefully disruptive. "Why do dogs eat other dogs' crap?", "why is a pig's penis shaped like a corkscrew?" and my favorite "why do all the animals except us have sex from behind?"Well, what to do? Tell the student that the question is inappropriate and risk having the student stop asking questions? Tell the student you'll talk about it later? Send the kid to the office for disruption and being vulgar? Actually, I give the most concise and technical explanation possible. If I don't know the answer, then I look it up and bring it with me to the very next class.Once, two years ago, an AP (a former biology teacher) came down to my classroom at lunch and told me that a mother had just bitched at him b/c I told her daughter that dolphins have sex like humans! (He was chuckling while he told me this.) I told him that one of the students had a valid question about how animals have sex (I think we were in the ecology unit at the time) and when another student asked about "doing it from behind" I informed the class that mammals on all fours are build to have sex in that way and that it is advantageous since the animals can uncouple quickly if danger approaches. I then added that, as far as mammals go, only humans and cetaceans have sex facing each other.What!?! I gave a fact! Why is she so pissed? B/c I talked about sex? NO! B/c I compared human sex to animal sex!Point to the story--no matter what, someone will find or create controversy where they see possible controversy. Some controversial ideas are born of ignorance (most objections to biological evolution would be due to ignorance--i.e. just not knowing all the facts or observations or evidences). Sometimes, people are just plain wacky--like the group in Texas who wanted "Cain's theories" put into social studies to offset the controversy of saying people were hunter-gathers first instead of farmers like Cain!?! The same groups also saw a controversy with the metric system b/c "if God wanted us to use the metric system Jesus would have had ten apostles"! That is a big WTF!!! Some people are just uncomfortable with certain things. Other people have their own agenda, want to put their own spin on things. Others want to make sure no one else is putting a spin on things.As an educator, it is my duty to teach biology and earth science. I am doing a disservice to my students if I do not teach them what they need to know to think critically and be successful in and out of science.Sometimes people and their opinions are wrong--no differing points of view, no "we'll agree to disagree". Some things just make other things wrong. Saying that evolution and natural selection are too "controversial" to teach is wrong. A scientifically robust theory of which certain aspects are held as fact (common descent) that is supported by mountains of evidences that not only predict future evidences but can independently corroborate other evidences (a great display of what sound science does) is only controversial outside of science. The mechanisms and tempo of evolution are continually being revamped and redone and discussed, but this is what happens in science through observation, experimentation, and peer review. The normal discussion and flow of info btwn scientists should not be seen as "oh, your ideas are not proven and are therefore controversial!!!" "Two scientists disagree--controversy!!!" Why shouldn't schools teach about a scientifically robust theory that breaks no laws and impinges on no one's rights? You might as well throw out every theory in science if you are using the same rational as you would for tossing out evolution and natural selection.

quote:

---

1) The organisms in the fossil record may have been buried according to their habitat (when a flood starts, the trilobites and mollusks and anthropods are ALREADY at the bottom and the birds and the mammals would expectedly serve as the last to become buried)

---

Regardless of where they are buried, you do not find humans buried with dinosaurs or trilobites. The fossil record shows that their was a clear cut sequence of evolving organisms over time--long periods of time--on Earth. If all of these organisms were around at the same time, then you would at least find one instance of a human with a dinosaur. If you say that the humans are found last b/c they could have boats or climbed the highest hill or whatever, we would still find the remnants of their civilization that they left behind as they scrambled to safety--tools, "junkyards" of discarded materials and the occassional body buried in the ground.

quote:

---

2) They may have been burried according to their body density (when a flood starts, the sediments would layer-out depending on the density thereof, and so clams and other shell-creatures would naturally sink below the "floaters" like the birds and mammals)

---

Then why do we find trilobites of various sizes buried in the strata? Ok, in some places turbulance disrupted the orderly laying down of organisms. Regardless, you still do not find the organisms buried together that would show the book of genesis to be true. You still find a distinct sequence of evolving organisms in the fossil record. Also, what about the plants that were eventually compressed into coal? Why do we not find any angiosperms in the fossil record from that time? Too many questions, not enough (if any) logical answers. Time for class. Today we talk about Earth's orbit and other general features of our planet.

quote:

---

3) When a flood starts, they may be buried according to the violence of such a catastrophe (polystrate fossils, overlapping strata, and a combination of 1 and 2 explanations above would give us reason to believe the fact that, if a catastrophe occurs, evidence should be apparent for several thousand years to come).

---

Here is a website on polystrate fossils.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.htmlWhat exactly do you mean by "overlapping strata"? Do you mean strata that is folded by tectonic movement and then part of it erodes away, leaving the strata to look like it was "upside-down" in certain areas?More later...{The following was added by edit}I have already addressed how sedimentary rock layers are laid down and how there are diconformities in the Grand Canyon.[This message has been edited by hitchy, 04-21-2004]

No matter how much you say that only facts and empirically gathered data should be taught, for instance--

quote:

---

the only things that should be discussed exclusively in the science classroom are the fossils, the geologic strata, the characteristics of species of animals and plants both living and extinct, the anatomy of humans and animals, the factual and empirically-observed elements of our solar system, the observable processes of nature such as photosynthesis and the decays of radioactive elements, and the behavior of elements, ions, and ionic compounds

---

or...

quote:

---

I am going to step outside the world of science and into the world of "what can we know FOR SURE (as opposed to hypotheses and theories)" in order to look at the theory of evolution as more than just a scientific viewpoint

---

...you offer your own explanations for the objectively gathered evidences. I know you said that evolution should not be taught exclusively, but there are no other scientific theories that explain the evidence as well and are confirmed time and time again like evolution is. So, would you advocate the use of the christian bible in science class as a counterpoint to evolution as long as you stuck with the "facts", or would you espouse explaining the "facts" according to your worldview?Guess what? The most beautiful thing about science (in my opinion) is that it is UNIVERSAL. As long as you objectively carry out your experiments, use some form of scientific method, and have your ideas scrutinized by your peers, you can be a scientist. It doesn't matter what your worldview is. An Indian Hindu would get the same results as a Pakistani Muslim if they both followed the same procedures of the same experiment. Same goes for any nationality or faith. Now, creationism is definitely not universal. How "creation" occurred, when looked at subjectively is so varied and uncompromising that nothing would be agreed upon. This is why science stays objective and limits itself to naturalistic explanations. How else could you definitely know something to any degree of certainty?Evolution is a great example of what science is and can accomplish. Throughout the many fields of Earth Science, Life Science, and Chemistry, all of the evidence points to biological evolution over the long period of time that encompasses Earth's history. Mythical and supernatural explanations lead nowhere except back to the holy books and musings of priests and prelates. When new evidence is presented that refutes a biblical story (lo, there are many), science moves on with the evidence, while the bible, for example, becomes more and more fictionalized.Evolution--exists because of the evidence. New evidence causes the theory (and its components) to change and develop objectively.Biblical Creationism--exists in spite of the evidence. Anything that refutes the stories contained in the bible cannot be true b/c the bible is inerrant and the word of (my) god.Time to review plate tectonics, cross-cutting relationships, and radiometric dating in Earth Science. We have a final-type exam on friday. Bye!{added the word "you" in the top paragraph to clarify the question}[This message has been edited by hitchy, 04-21-2004]

quote:

---

Genetic changes in alleles of parent-to-offspring transition proves absolutely nothing in terms of evidence for evolution. Again "we can't think of any explanation better than that which our theory provides, therefore WE MUST be right!"
--A famous evolutionist

---

Do you mean that the erosion went on for millions of years or that the erosion removed millions of years of rock? Are you saying that it would take millions of years to erode sedimentary rock layers, but only a few months to lay the sedimentary rocks down? Evidence shows otherwise. Mass wasting is just one way a large mass of rock could erode in a matter of seconds. However, sedimentary rocks take longer than a few months to form.Besides, you are forgetting that we have methods to absolutely date rocks (within an acceptable margin of error, of course). Measuring oxygen isotopes in zircons, carbon-14 dating, and potassium-argon dating are types of radiometric dating that give us precise ranges of rock ages based on radio-isotopes. Not only does each method give us a date, they also corroborate the dates found by the other methods.More later...

quote:

---

If you are referring to the same peppered moth color-change from white to black as mentioned in most textbooks, that was a hoax

---

Actually, the frequency of the black (sooty-colored) alleles increased in the population as the white alleles went down. This fact does not depend on where the moths were placed during a photo shoot. The frequency of the alleles changed b/c of the selection pressure of the darken tree bark caused by pollution.

quote:

---

Since 1980, however, evidence has accumulating showing that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks. Fnnish zoologist Kauri Mikkola reported an experiment in 1984 in which he used caged moths to assess normal resting places. Mikkola observed that ‘the normal resting place of the Peppered Moth is beneath small, more or less horizontal branches probably high up in the canopies’

---

If there was enough pollution to cause the bark to turn dark gray/black then the same pollution would have turned the branches black also. Dr. Well is wrong is his assumptions that the event did not occur. It did, only the taking of the photographs has actually been questioned.

Icon of ObfuscationCheck out the web address above for a critique of Icons of Evolution. It is informative and provides links to comments by scientists who work in the fields Wells attacks.I have only read the chapter on the Miller-Urey experiment and had enough of Icons. Wells is sloppy in his criticisms. If he is not sloppy and knows what he is doing then he is just being academically dishonest.

quote:

---

Your argument--whether true or not--does not hold any weight in determining whether to be used as evidence of darwinian evolution or simply adaptation to fit the environment (something that would have happend a LOT following the Flood).

---

But there is no corroborating evidence that says there was a global flood. Who is now fitting evidences together to support their presuppostitions?