Dorothy, Toto and Darwin

[MadelynIris]

But seriously... these questions are the latest in tactics by pro-creationists/anti-evolutionists.

I'd love to hear some educated responses to these questions, if anyone has the time or inclination.

What Some Students
Are Asking Their
Biology Teachers
Critics of evolution are supplying students with prepared questions on such topics as:

The origins of life. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth - when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?


Darwin's tree of life. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?


Vertebrate embryos. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for common ancestry - even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?


The archaeopteryx. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds - even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?


Peppered moths. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection - when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?


Darwin's finches. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection - even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?


Mutant fruit flies. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution - even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?


Human origins. Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident - when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?


Evolution as a fact. Why are students told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact - even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

 

[pax]

Evolution as a fact. Why are students told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact - even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

I can comment on this last one. I was educated mostly in public schools, and all of my background in science beyond a 3rd-grade level is from public schooling--and in Pennsylvania (that is, an East Coast, "liberal" state by comparison to, say, Arkansas). I was never told the evolution was fact. I was told that it was a well-supported theory, but that it was never (and as such cannot be) "proven" as, say, gravity can be proven.

What many "creationists" fail to remember is that, at the conclusion of The Origin of Species, Darwin himself acknowledged that evolution could not be ultimately responsible for the creation of life; that is, the ultimate responsbility for creation, according to Darwin, lies with God. I know this because we debated this subject in my confirmation preparation classes when I was a wee lassie, and the pastor of my church actually distributed photocopies of the relevant passages of The Origin of Species.

Just saying.

 

[MadelynIris]

I was never told the evolution was fact. I was told that it was a well-supported theory, but that it was never (and as such cannot be) "proven" as, say, gravity can be proven.

Right, the most prudent teachers make sure this is clear. But most are careless about it.

 

[melon]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html

All of these "questions" come from Jonathan Wells' book, "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong," and, as the above site shows, is a seriously flawed book that's just propaganda for creationist/intelligent design folk.

Melon

 

[BVS]

The only fact is we don't know 100%. To me you can't ignore certain evidence, it's right there before your eyes.

I don't understand those that believe 100% that 7 days and bam here we are. And I don't believe 100% that by some cosmic accident we're here either.

For those that take Genesis at face value are ignoring science and fact. Those that take certain theories of evolution as fact are ignoring the holes.

 

[melon]

Re: Re: Dorothy, Toto and Darwin

I was never told the evolution was fact. I was told that it was a well-supported theory, but that it was never (and as such cannot be) "proven" as, say, gravity can be proven.

I don't think anything in science above criticism. "Theory" in science is not the same as "guessing." I think that when people say that they have a "theory" about something, what they really mean to say is that they're guessing, or, at most, have a "hypothesis" (educated guess).

The theory of gravity was rewritten over the last few years, because the original theory was disproven. But, here's the difference with science: everything can be rewritten with the proper evidence. Creationists presuppose that if elements of evolution are proven to be wrong, then that automatically means that they're right. No, even if 19th century Darwinism was ripped into 50 million different pieces to reform a new theory of evolution, one thing won't change: that creationism is a quackery that has no place in science class.

If gravity can be rewritten, then nothing says that evolution can't be rewritten as well.

Melon

 

[MadelynIris]

Melon,

The page/site you refer to seems to have an equal amount of fanaticism - quotes on Wells like:

For someone who self-righteously passes judgment on figures in textbooks

And now I see why - it's a usenet archive.

 

[pax]

I've often wondered why we, as people of faith, can't acknowledge the change and development of species over time in response to the environment--which is all the theory of evolution says, really--while at the same time ascribing ultimate responsbility for creation to God. Why is it not possible that evolution is a system "designed" as it were by God for the flowering of creation? As the all-powerful and all-knowing, God surely could have done this/be doing this.

I find this easy to believe. Other people, I guess, not so much.

 

[melon]

The page/site you refer to seems to have an equal amount of fanaticism

How amusing. You ignore all the science on there and pick on an extraneous quote that's utterly irrelevant to all the arguments it brings up.

That aside, there's already a scientific rebuttal to all those questions you offered. I presented it.

Melon

 

[pax]

You know, we *could* be having an interesting discussion on this instead of slinging sarcasm and pulling quotes out of context.

Just a suggestion.

 

[BVS]

I've often wondered why we, as people of faith, can't acknowledge the change and development of species over time in response to the environment--which is all the theory of evolution says, really--while at the same time ascribing ultimate responsbility for creation to God. Why is it not possible that evolution is a system "designed" as it were by God for the flowering of creation? As the all-powerful and all-knowing, God surely could have done this/be doing this.

I find this easy to believe. Other people, I guess, not so much.

I think the problem is in the understanding of the theories along with arrogance. People want to know they are superior to all other animals and not "descendants" of animals. Often in the description of these theories humans are described as descendants and that isn't entirely true.

 

[melon]

I've often wondered why we, as people of faith, can't acknowledge the change and development of species over time in response to the environment--which is all the theory of evolution says, really--while at the same time ascribing ultimate responsbility for creation to God. Why is it not possible that evolution is a system "designed" as it were by God for the flowering of creation? As the all-powerful and all-knowing, God surely could have done this/be doing this.

I found the one major caveat to "intelligent design" that makes me dislike it. Rather than just accepting that God worked through science and evolution, it spends a lot of time trying to rip apart "natural selection" and tries to find "proof" that God steered evolution into the direction that it is today. In other words, like creationism, it's just another attempt for theology to encroach on science where it's unwanted.

Leave the theology to Sunday school. I believe fully in evolution, including natural selection, and I believe in God, as well.

Melon

 

[MadelynIris]

scientific rebuttal + usenet =

 

[melon]

scientific rebuttal + usenet =

scientific rebuttal + religion =

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

if we must refer to Evolution as a theory, and tack on so many disclaimers, can we then refer to intellgent design and creationism as "not even theories"?

 

[MadelynIris]

Melon,

I've been going through the different 'articles' that usenet posters have 'written' over the years to rebut Icons of Evolution, and I am intrigued by some of them.

For example, this one on the embryo stuff:

In the case of Haeckel, though, I have to begin by admitting that Wells has got the core of the story right. Haeckel was wrong. His theory was invalid, some of his drawings were faked, and he willfully over-interpreted the data to prop up a false thesis. Furthermore, he was influential, both in the sciences and the popular press; his theory still gets echoed in the latter today. Wells is also correct in criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was misused to support a falsified theory.

 

[MadelynIris]

I guess what's really afoot here, is they need to change the textbooks to be more accurate, more current, eliminating much of the 'established' but yet flaky science supporting the theory.

FREE YOUR MIND!

 

[BVS]

Do we have evidence of what issues we have with the textbooks of today.

I'm asking because it's been about 14 years since I've talked about evolution in school.

I was taught it was theory nothing more. I was taught the slight variations of some of the theories. And I was taught that there is a school of thought that none of this existed and we arrived in a week.

 

[nbcrusader]

I've often wondered why we, as people of faith, can't acknowledge the change and development of species over time in response to the environment--which is all the theory of evolution says, really--while at the same time ascribing ultimate responsbility for creation to God. Why is it not possible that evolution is a system "designed" as it were by God for the flowering of creation? As the all-powerful and all-knowing, God surely could have done this/be doing this.

I find this easy to believe. Other people, I guess, not so much.

My guess is that if you got everyone in a room together (save the tiny minority of young earth folks), you could get an agreement that species change over time, whether by random chance, natural selection or by the hand of God.

The underlying current that influences these discussions is the origin of life question - was life spoken into existance by God or did it materialize from ??.

 

[MaxFisher]

My 8th grade science teacher was very pro-evolution. Whenever he was faced with a question about evolution that he couldn't answer he would say, "Well only God knows and He/She isn't telling us."

It would really piss me off. I wanted him to explain evolution without using God as a cop out. If the theory really is based on observable fact than it should be able to be presented and explained without bringing God into the mix.

 

[jay canseco]

The number one questioners of scientific theories are...............drumroll...................scientists.

Scientific theories need evidence to support them. Any questions as to the validity of a theory are considered a hypothesis. Valid experiments are required to test the hypothesis, and if a hypothesis is supported and the experiments conducted to test the hypothesis can be independantly repeated, the hypothesis slowly begins gaining strength. Eventually the hypothesis may become considered a scientific theory if enough evidence is gained.

 

[deep]

if we must refer to Evolution as a theory, and tack on so many disclaimers, can we then refer to intellgent design and creationism as "not even theories"?

That is about what I was thinking


Evolution - evidence supports that this is a reasonable "theory"


Intelligent design and creationism - evidence supports what? This is only a "belief" system, the same as any other religious belief. It does not belong in science classes.

Should we petition that “evolution” be presented in churches, as a public good, to improve people’s intelligence?

 

[Irvine511]

intelligent design and creationism belong in theology classes.

 

[deep]

My guess is that if you got everyone in a room together (save the tiny minority of young earth folks), you could get an agreement that species change over time, whether by random chance, natural selection or by the hand of God.

The underlying current that influences these discussions is the origin of life question - was life spoken into existance by God or did it materialize from ??.

So where does this leave the people that say they take the Bible as The Inerrant Word of God.

 

[verte76]

I've often wondered why we, as people of faith, can't acknowledge the change and development of species over time in response to the environment--which is all the theory of evolution says, really--while at the same time ascribing ultimate responsbility for creation to God. Why is it not possible that evolution is a system "designed" as it were by God for the flowering of creation? As the all-powerful and all-knowing, God surely could have done this/be doing this.

I find this easy to believe. Other people, I guess, not so much.

This is basically what I believe. Evolution is such an amazing thing that only God could be responsible for it, and I think He is.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I guess what's really afoot here, is they need to change the textbooks to be more accurate, more current, eliminating much of the 'established' but yet flaky science supporting the theory.

FREE YOUR MIND!

I agree, and we can add the very solid scientific evidence for evolution that has been unraveled through advances in genetics, the more recent paleontological discoveries of transitional forms and our current understanding of the hadean earth as well as the cambrian explosion.

Evolution is a scientific fact ~ it happens, selective pressures on a sexually reproducing organism will create changes in the population, we have the fossil record showing some of the life that has existed on the planet and we can see connections and simmilarities. Now it is also a scientific theory, a scientific theory is a model that can explain the evidence in the best way, theories can have different levels of confidence but evolution is probably the highest confidence one. New discoveries about life on our planet not only conform to the theory, they fill in gaps about our knowledge. Evolution is a fact just like the fact objects fall down ~ Evolution by means of Natural Selection is a theory just like Newtons law of universal gravitation or Einsteins general relativity are theories about gravity.

 

[anitram]

Dobzhansky:

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

 

[melon]

I guess what's really afoot here, is they need to change the textbooks to be more accurate, more current, eliminating much of the 'established' but yet flaky science supporting the theory.

FREE YOUR MIND!

Creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories. They have no place in science textbooks. Period.

As for the textbooks themselves, I agree that they should be current on how *evolution* changes. The textbook industry suffers mostly from the fact that they have become corporate-generated drivel that are subject to huge error. That article that you dismissed as "Usenet" conceded one point: that the diagrams of the embryos were indeed disproven and should be removed. But for anyone to even remotely imply that science textbooks should insert any creationist or intelligent design ideas into textbooks as "alternative theories," they should be laughed at. Creationism and ID are not scientific theories. They are religious ideas that belong in church, not in science.

Melon

 

[Judah]

What A_Wanderer said! (Evolution is a scientific fact; Darwin's Theory of Evolution is just that...a theory.)

 

[Muggsy]

I need you to explain me why do you discuss about this topic... I mean, I know that there's a conflict among the theories of live and evolution, but I don't know why is so important for you...

I'm asking you this cuz I'm not from the USA and I don't understand what is important for you about that topic. I was educated in a catholic school and I learned about darwin too, but we never discussed the diferences between the christian vision of life and the cientific research about the origin of it.