Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   Biology teacher resource help
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 46 of 81 (453547)
02-02-2008 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by nator
02-02-2008 6:15 PM


Are you saying that the Pope is an Atheist?
prediction: Ray will state that the Pope is catholic and that he and all other catholics aren't christians and therefore are equivalent to athiests.

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by nator, posted 02-02-2008 6:15 PM nator has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 47 of 81 (453548)
02-02-2008 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Tanypteryx
02-02-2008 11:55 AM


I wholeheartedly second the recommendation of Abusing Science, and add to it a more recent book by Dr. Kitcher, Living with Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith
In addition to updating the last chapter of Abusing Science, Dr. Kitcher gives a concise and highly readable history of creationism and shows why science rejected it in favor of the ToE. This history is particularly valuable because every argument that any YEC, OEC or IDer makes has been refuted long ago, and Dr. Kitcher shows how.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-02-2008 11:55 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
fishboy
Junior Member (Idle past 5893 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 02-01-2008


Message 48 of 81 (453549)
02-02-2008 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by randman
02-02-2008 4:03 AM


Re: discussing the TalkOrigins article
Randman, didn't mean to offend. I do want both sides. Just so you know, i am a creationist. Your reply explaining the inbreeding of dogs is good, its just that i need the data. Honestly, when I read that post, it didn't sit well. It just seemed there was something missing. Later when I read arachnophilia's reply to your post, I saw why. Again this isn't meant to provoke. I'm just trying to clarify the type of information I'm looking for. Besides neither of you gave me a reference where i could look at the issue for myself. So why should I accept either opinion.
I must admit, you did hit at something in this post.
"Imo, evolutionists don't help students develop critical thinking. Even this site claims most biologists don't even understand evolution all that well....maybe they are correct and I shouldn't slam them for that. But if that is the case, why are we teaching kids something Phds don't really understand?"(sorry not yet sure how to quote)
I feel like I get the run around when I try to research this topic. I realize that part of this is that evolution covers so many different disciplines, you almost have to be an expert in every field to be able to wrap your head around it. This post rambled a bit, but I did feel your frustration.
fb

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by randman, posted 02-02-2008 4:03 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by nator, posted 02-03-2008 10:23 AM fishboy has replied
 Message 50 by randman, posted 02-03-2008 1:04 PM fishboy has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 49 of 81 (453585)
02-03-2008 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by fishboy
02-02-2008 10:29 PM


Re: discussing the TalkOrigins article
quote:
I feel like I get the run around when I try to research this topic.
Do you feel like you've been given the runaround by the scientists on this site?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by fishboy, posted 02-02-2008 10:29 PM fishboy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by fishboy, posted 02-03-2008 5:12 PM nator has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 50 of 81 (453617)
02-03-2008 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by fishboy
02-02-2008 10:29 PM


Re: discussing the TalkOrigins article
fb, keep in mind that most evos posit subgroups of species are isolated and thus evolve, which is similar to dog breeding.
If you want both sides of the debate, however, this may not be the place. As you can see on this thread, some arguments, coincidentally those for evolution are more allowed, and critics of evos are disallowed to a degree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by fishboy, posted 02-02-2008 10:29 PM fishboy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2008 1:11 PM randman has not replied
 Message 52 by Admin, posted 02-03-2008 1:25 PM randman has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 51 of 81 (453620)
02-03-2008 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by randman
02-03-2008 1:04 PM


still open thread

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by randman, posted 02-03-2008 1:04 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by fishboy, posted 02-03-2008 5:34 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 52 of 81 (453629)
02-03-2008 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by randman
02-03-2008 1:04 PM


Re: discussing the TalkOrigins article
Hi Randman, several things:
  1. In the past, because it was felt unfair to suspend you when you didn't seem to understand the reasons, you were allowed to argue your position for long periods of time. But since history indicates that you'll rarely understand moderators' point of view I will simply suspend you without discussion.
  2. In the OP, Fishboy said:
    I am desperately trying to understand things from an evolutionists point of view.
    That doesn't include you.
  3. In the OP, Fishboy also said:
    In addition, has anyone found any creationist arguments that make sense.
    This also doesn't include you. Naturally all the arguments you've marshalled for your position make sense to you. Fishboy is asking if there are any creationist arguments that make sense to evolutionists.
    Feel free to start a new thread and to invite Fishboy there to get creationist views on evolution.
Let me draw an analogy. Let's say I somehow got it into my head that Jesus Christ is Santa Claus. Someone joins the board and asks, "I'm trying to understand things from a Christian point of view." What sense would it make for me to contribute my non-Christian misunderstandings about Christianity?
One other thing. We have topics for a reason. Stay on topic or you'll be gone.
One more thing. The despicable nature of evolutionists is not usually the topic of any thread. Again, please stay on topic or you'll be gone.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by randman, posted 02-03-2008 1:04 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by randman, posted 02-03-2008 1:51 PM Admin has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 53 of 81 (453638)
02-03-2008 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Admin
02-03-2008 1:25 PM


Re: discussing the TalkOrigins article
This also doesn't include you. Naturally all the arguments you've marshalled for your position make sense to you. Fishboy is asking if there are any creationist arguments that make sense to evolutionists.
Feel free to start a new thread and to invite Fishboy there to get creationist views on evolution.
Fine. I hope it is also clear to fishboy that this interpretation of what he is asking for means he will only get the evolutionist version of the debate.
I think it is fair to say that evos here do not accept that any creationist arguments make sense, and likewise, creationists and IDers find that either very few or no evolutionist arguments are reasonable either.
I had interpreted fb wanted both sides' opinions here. I also was a bit puzzled in how evos are allowed to present evo arguments and debate them here but not me.
I'll drop off with just a warning to fb that he will thus be getting material from just one perspective on the thread.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Admin, posted 02-03-2008 1:25 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Admin, posted 02-03-2008 4:11 PM randman has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 54 of 81 (453672)
02-03-2008 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by randman
02-03-2008 1:51 PM


Re: discussing the TalkOrigins article
No one is trying to silence creationists to give a one sided picture, we're just trying to stay on-topic. As I just said, "Feel free to start a new thread and to invite Fishboy there to get creationist views on evolution." You can even start the thread and post what you would like to say there, then post here to refer Fishboy over there. Go to town!
You've got to stop confusing efforts to maintain order with efforts to silence Creationists. If I wanted to silence Creationists I wouldn't have started this site. Sheesh!
Edited by Admin, : Whoa! here => there

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by randman, posted 02-03-2008 1:51 PM randman has not replied

  
fishboy
Junior Member (Idle past 5893 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 02-01-2008


Message 55 of 81 (453680)
02-03-2008 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by nator
02-03-2008 10:23 AM


Re: discussing the TalkOrigins article
Actually no. Everyone here has been great for the most part. What I really mean is that most of the textbooks I have read only give a little info that is treated like fact. I just want to see how they came to that conclusion. Many here have been giving me just what I was looking for. Thanks
fb

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by nator, posted 02-03-2008 10:23 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by NosyNed, posted 02-03-2008 5:47 PM fishboy has not replied
 Message 58 by nator, posted 02-03-2008 6:09 PM fishboy has replied
 Message 59 by PaulK, posted 02-03-2008 6:12 PM fishboy has not replied
 Message 60 by randman, posted 02-03-2008 6:50 PM fishboy has not replied

  
fishboy
Junior Member (Idle past 5893 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 02-01-2008


Message 56 of 81 (453683)
02-03-2008 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Modulous
02-03-2008 1:11 PM


Re: still open thread
Thanks modulous. Good thread.
fb

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2008 1:11 PM Modulous has not replied

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


Message 57 of 81 (453686)
02-03-2008 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by fishboy
02-03-2008 5:12 PM


fact ?
Actually no. Everyone here has been great for the most part. What I really mean is that most of the textbooks I have read only give a little info that is treated like fact. I just want to see how they came to that conclusion. Many here have been giving me just what I was looking for. Thanks
It is challenging to write a text book for lower levels and have to leave a lot out like 98.3 %). The tentative nature of the approach to nature shows up all the time in actual scientific papers. You see words like "suggests", "may" all over the place.
This is left out of high school (and most higher level texts) because it clutters up the text and is misunderstood in colloquial English.
"Fact" isn't black and white. It shades from somewhat likely to very, extremely, highly likely. In science the approach is to try to remember that it never quite reaches 100 %. However that doesn't mean it is as much as "fact" as one can find anywhere anytime. This is left out of most writing to not clutter things up.
Generally, the right thing to do is to teach kids that the material presented is the consensus at the time of publication. It would be good to occasionally supplement this with a look at newer information to help them understand how things change with new information though.
It would be useful for you to supply some of that info that is treated as "fact" so it maybe discussed.
For example, that life has evolved is as much "fact" as the sky being blue. Details are, sometimes, shaded down the certainty scale a bit.
However given even a tiny part of the back up for that "fact" would require that a year or more of school be devoted to just biology and that isn't practical.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix the all important italics code.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by fishboy, posted 02-03-2008 5:12 PM fishboy has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 58 of 81 (453695)
02-03-2008 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by fishboy
02-03-2008 5:12 PM


Re: discussing the TalkOrigins article
quote:
What I really mean is that most of the textbooks I have read only give a little info that is treated like fact. I just want to see how they came to that conclusion.
Well, would you think that a History or Physics textbook was "giving you the runaround" because it didn't include all of the relevant historical source material or original research papers?
Are you saying that Biology textbooks do this sort of thing more than other subjects, or do you just tend to be more suspicious of the content of Biology books, compared to other subjects?
Please don't think I'm tryng to play a game of "gotcha" or something. I just thought it was odd that someone would think that Biology textbooks, in particular, were trying to pull a fast one or something, when most other subjects' tectbooks treat information in pretty much the same way when there's an enorrmous amount of material to cover and limited time to cover it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by fishboy, posted 02-03-2008 5:12 PM fishboy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by fishboy, posted 02-08-2008 12:25 PM nator has replied

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


Message 59 of 81 (453697)
02-03-2008 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by fishboy
02-03-2008 5:12 PM


Biology Texts
What level texts have you read ? For what you want you should be looking at college-level texts as a start. Mayr's What Evolution is is available relatively cheaply, but I'd suggest that a mote detailed text like Mark Ridley's Evolution would be better.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by fishboy, posted 02-03-2008 5:12 PM fishboy has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 60 of 81 (453703)
02-03-2008 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by fishboy
02-03-2008 5:12 PM


May want to read....
Pierre Grasse
Goldschmidt
Broom
John Davison
Grasse accepted universal common descent but rejected mainstream evo theory (NeoDarwinism) as a "myth." These are a couple of salient quotes in that regard.
Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case. Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.6
Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs. Evolution of Living Organisms (1977) p.8
Those all accept some sort of evolution but strongly reject Darwinism.
You may want to read Behe and some of the papers and books found here for an ID perspective.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/...
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal. Randman - Please see RAZD's reply - Maybe you should go to a "Practice Makes Perfect" topic and experiment with shortening how links are displayed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by fishboy, posted 02-03-2008 5:12 PM fishboy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2008 7:09 PM randman has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024