15 answers to creationist bullsh!t acusations

[xirtam]

Actually, Moonbeam, Hermeneutics is a lot like peeling a banana. Very observant.

Studying the Bible takes close, careful work. If you just go "skin deep," you're bound to get something that tastes bitter, yet still remain consistent with the nature of the entire entity.

But tossing the whole banana because you don't like the taste of the peeling is a bit absurd.

 

[JupiterJones]

Hermeneutics? Hermeneutics? Hermeneutics? I wonder if that's anything like what I'd call peeling a banana

Moonbeam,
Your food analogies usually leave me wondering what you actually intend to say. (I still don't understand the whole cabbages thing from a while back). Hermeneutics is the use of methodological principles of interpretation. Most evangelicals subscribe to the Chicago Statement. Read the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics and you tell me if it reminds you of peeling a banana.

You have shown no evidence of this. You're just making a blanket statement without backing it up at all. I'm sure there are plenty of scientists who would love to make a name tearing down a well established theory. They've been going after Einstein and general relativity, what makes evolutionary theory special? Nothing except that you think it is attacking your religion...

UThomas,
Do a google search for Intelligent Design Censorship and you can read many testimonials. I could tell you a couple of stories concerning people I know who have had these sort of experiences also. The information is out there is you are willing to look. Are you saying that you can't believe this would happen?

Do you find it interesting that you don't see this attack from other religions or even other countries? This is predominately an American Christian issue.

Yes, I do find it very interesting. But for different reasons that you, I suppose. I would associate it with the fact that the US is the only country in the world where Baptist have thrived for long enough to have the luxury of devoting time to these sorts of issues. In other countries Baptist struggle for survival against state religions. There is a difference of perspective as to just how important this really is.

If you will notice, there are many issues in which Americans are unique as to how much time/effort they are willing to donate. I feel that in most nations, people have other concerns that take precedence.


Parroting someone elses criticisms without either understanding the criticisim or the original theory is probably worse. yamahaxs is on the money, this is an attack created in the heads of creationists. I've already pointed to a study that shows that evolution is clearly NOT taught as an origin theory, contrary to your claims.

I looked back but didn't see the study you mention. PM me so that I can take a look. By origin theory do you mean the origin of species or of life, the universe and everything? My claim was that people who are taught definitively that evolution is a scientific fact, come to an understanding that this disproves the Bible. Then, people who wish to attack religion use this fact as proof that Scripture is wrong. I've heard it a thousand times. I have published rebuttal articles in The Alabama Freethinker and in The Skeptical Review. These attacks are not solely in the mind of Christians.

Is the General Theory of Evolution used to explain the origins of matter? No. The origins of life? No. However, the General Theory (nor the Specific Theory) are taught accurately either. And this is my main complaint. Take a look at the PBS special on Evolution and it is much closer to a propaganda piece than an accurate depiction of the strengths and weakness of the theory.

I sincerely hope that I have not simply parroted what someone else has said. Here are my main points.

1. Inductive Reasoning proves nothing.
2. Evolutionary theory is the result of Inductive reasoning.
3. Evolutionary theory is taught much too definitively on the secondary level.
4. Modern education does not teach critical thinking.
5. This lack of critical thinking leads to accepting logically weak arguments.

 

[xirtam]

PastorDon, I agree with your general philosophy... I think.

But I do have a couple of questions. First, about your premise that inductive reasoning proves nothing. Why? How do you prove that you even exist if not by inductive reasoning?

Secondly, I don't think the fault lies with "Modern Education" for not thinking critically, but with people who are unwilling to think critically. It takes effort. People don't want to do that.

Perhaps if you'll link me to your explications of these main points... I just want to understand the position better, because there are quite a few unsupported jumps with just these five premises.

Thanks.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: BigJohnKC

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
How come the amount of stupid people is on the rise?

Because we're making it easier through advances in medicine and such to live longer and to survive your own stupidity.

Take the helmet for example. People were engaging in activities that were cracking their skulls and killing them. Instead of stopping participation in said activities, someone designed the helmet so we could continue our skull-cracking ways without cracking skulls. Stupidity thrives.

agreed. safer cars, better medicine for idiots who hurt themselves, glasses for allowing defective genes to continue to exist, all sorts of other treatements. of course, I wear glasses, but i'm not so blind that I "need" them (mostly to read at a distance, e.g. lectures). just get a new hitler to purify the gene pool!

.

Another thing - a lot of diseases people try to cure take effect after reproductive age, and therefore dont get removed from the gene pool. treating them doesn't "cure" the problem at all - they'll pass it to their kids.

 

[JupiterJones]

But I do have a couple of questions. First, about your premise that inductive reasoning proves nothing. Why? How do you prove that you even exist if not by inductive reasoning?

Every proof relies on axioms. Axioms are those things which are accepted as true without proof. Descartes believed in only one axiom: I Think therefore I Am. He went on from there with various proofs of God's existence, the most commonly known being that he (Descartes) could not think of anything outside himself unless something was outside himself. Therefore, God (the cause) existed to (effect) make him think of God.

A question here to be asked is: What if your axiom is wrong? If axioms are wrong (and none are proven) then every proof based on that axiom is invalid. So how can you know anything?

To this end we have developed various systems to determine what is true and what is false. Philosophy deals with these questions, and should not be thought of as separate from the scientific method. The scientific method can determine, with relative confidence, things that are probably true. The scientific method can prove that there are things that are untrue. One example is the Spontaneous Generation of Life - see Pasteur.

As one studies philosophy, you eventually encounter what is probably the most ground shaking proof in the history of mathematics and/or philosophy: Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.

"All logical systems of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules." This infers that "rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth. "

As one comprehends Gödel, some give up asking how can we know anything. Others go forward with relief, realizing that there is truth outside of the provable/logical. The latter is actually very liberating. Now, ask yourself the following. Do we just forget that truth, moving on as if it does not exist, or do we try to find that truth? In addition, if you look for it, how do you figure out what is true and what is false.

The study of how we know something is epistemology. We all base what we know on four basic sources:

INTUITIVE KNOWLEDGE takes forms such as belief, faith, intuition, etc. It is based on feelings rather than hard, cold "facts."

AUTHORITATIVE KNOWLEDGE is based on information received from people, books, a supreme being, etc. Its strength depends on the strength of these sources.

LOGICAL KNOWLEDGE is arrived at by reasoning from "point A" (which is generally accepted) to "point B" (the new knowledge).

EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE is based on demonstrable, objective facts (which are determined through observation and/or experimentation).

The question now becomes one of order and importance of the above sources of knowledge. To declare that you will only use one, or two of these is to declare that you choose to ignore some truth. Some people choose to mock one or two of the above, but to do so is to mock truth, and demonstrates another choice to limit knowledge of the truth.


Now, back to you question. Inductive reasoning is a good tool. I hope that you can now see that by itself it is woefully inadequate to prove anything. Evolutionary theory is an example of inductive reasoning because it is one scenario that fits available evidence. In other words, it is a guess, even if an educated guess. Many of the scenarios from the Intelligent Design crowd also fit all the available evidence, but certainly begs the question as to the identity if the designer. Inductive reasoning can point you in the right direction, but can never bring closure.

Deductive reasoning, on the other hand, is the foundation of Mathematical Logic and any conclusion drawn is just as valid as the axioms on which it is based. To disagree with a conclusion based on Deductive reasoning is to disagree with the axiom. To disagree with a conclusion based on inductive reasoning is simply to provide another scenario that fits the evidence.

Secondly, I don't think the fault lies with "Modern Education" for not thinking critically, but with people who are unwilling to think critically. It takes effort. People don't want to do that.

I might be wrong. This is certainly based in inductive reasoning. I believe that if more people are taught critical thinking, then more people will think critically. The problem moves beyond secondary education, but does seem worse there. In college, most people train for a profession rather than seeking an education. Therefore, we produce adults able to make a good wage, but who have not learned valuable thinking skills.

Note: All the above is taught in any good Intro to ethics/logic/philosophy class. These things should be foundational, taught to everyone in High School. Most of us, however, never study ethics, logic, or philosophy. I did not learn most of these things until I went to grad school in my mid-30's. I was introduced to Gödel here on Anandtech.

 

[littlegohan]

edited

 

[JupiterJones]

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Modern education gets a bad rap. Yes, there are challenges for schools that are complex and troublesome(e.g., inner city schools, student drop out rates). BUT in general, kids know MORE today when they graduate highschool than their grandparents did at the same age. Also, our society has continued to make advances and has continued to be a beacon for the world in for post-secondary education.

If modern education is so enept, then we wouldn't see any of the successes of the modern world.


As far as ways of knowing about the world, PastorDon is correct that inductive reasoning will always carry a degree of uncertainity. BUT the scientific method, deals with this uncertainity through replication, and theory driven observations. Scientific method is a proven approach for increasing our understanding of how the universe works.

Observe facts A,B, & C.
Form Theory X <---induction
Use Theory X to predict fact D
Observe fact D
Revise Theory X if needed. <--- induction
Iterate.

Evolution Theory is an excellent subject in which to TEACH critical thinking. All the more reason to teach it in science classrooms.

 

[smp]

How come the amount of stupid people is on the rise?

Because we don't have to think to survive.

 

[smp]

Oh yeah .. and down with religion, it's stupid. I can say that and still feel that I am a spiritual person however, there are things which can not be explained, lets just leave it at that and enjoy. Sex for example .. we can explain is scientifically, but that leaves it dry and doesn't explain why I really, really like to .. uh, nevermind .. you get my drift .. but yeah, life is a mystery, if we had answers for everything we'd have no fun.

 

[Alex]

+1

 

[JupiterJones]

As far as ways of knowing about the world, PastorDon is correct that inductive reasoning will always carry a degree of uncertainity. BUT the scientific method, deals with this uncertainity through replication, and theory driven observations. Scientific method is a proven approach for increasing our understanding of how the universe works.

I agree fully. The Scientific method is a tremendous tool.

Evolution Theory is an excellent subject in which to TEACH critical thinking. All the more reason to teach it in science classrooms.

Once again I agree. The problem is that when you do that chapter in Biology class, you are told this is how it worked - now regurgitate. In writing secondary education textbooks, an assumption is made that anyone truly interested in the sciences will learn more at college. Those who don't go to college, really just shouldn't be confused. So we state things simply and definitively. Even at times teaching known error because the concept behind the misinformation is what we really want to teach.

In particular, High School texts handling of the following is almost universally in error:

Miller-Urey Experiments
Darwin's Tree of Life
Homology in Vertebrate Limbs
Haekel's embryos
Archaeopteryx - The missing link
Peppered Moths
Darwin?s Finches

 

[BreakApart]

Evolution.... lol... you believe everything you read.

Creationism... lol... you believe everything you read.


Creationism requires faith or the idea lacks evidence.
Evolution has NEVER solved how the particles that created the big bang came into being. Sorry, "from nothing-> something" CANNOT happen in evolution it goes against science.

Face it friends both of these ideas have another major flaw, they were written by man, humans make mistakes. (call it fudging the numbers, or misinterpretation, either way it happens everyday.)


Which leaves only (1) solution that fits both models, they are working together in harmony.

 

[UThomas]

PastorDon

This was your original statement that I objected to:

There is no academic freedom as far as this issue is concerned. Peer review in this area is actually peer censorship.

There has been no evidence shown of this. I'm not going to go read some IDC site that says "my web page top 10 list didn't get published by Harvard Press." I want some legitimate evidence, which you have not shown. Like I said, there are TONS of people who would love to smash evolutionary theory if only to make a name for themselves.

Evolutionary theory is taught as a process (and yes, that includes speciation). By contrast, things like the Big Bang would be taught as origin theories (be it life, the universe, etc). I can go into greater detail on the highschool text book study, or give you a reference for you if you still want it. Additionally, I've already pointed out how your points 1 & 2 ->

1. Inductive Reasoning proves nothing.
2. Evolutionary theory is the result of Inductive reasoning.

Are incorrect. I can go into greater detail if necessary. For example, I think it would be fair to say that evolutionary theory is a strong theory b/c it has high predictive powers, high degrees of conscilience with other branches of science, factual fundamentals, and a large and varied body of evidence. Theories should be measured as if they are flash lights; the stronger ones reveal more (higher explanatory powers) than the weaker ones. This is in contrast with a "bucket" model, where each time you find a piece of evidence you put it in the bucket and then measure the theory by the weight of the bucket. Additionally, science in general obviously doesn't deal with truth in the absolute sense, but more of a "near truth." So that has to be taken into consideration. It is not the same as philosophy and it is not suppose to be.

You would also of course have to agree that IDC is *at best* unscientific, since one of its axioms is untestable in a scientific sense.

Also, if you get a chance or have the time, talk about how each of these is mistaught as opposed to just throwing that out there:

Miller-Urey Experiments
Darwin's Tree of Life
Homology in Vertebrate Limbs
Haekel's embryos
Archaeopteryx - The missing link
Peppered Moths
Darwin?s Finches

Darwin's Tree of Life I think I am aware of, and that problem was addressed in text books decades ago (they use to draw it more as a line toward humans, instead of a short bush). By the same token, do you feel many creationist or IDC claims could have the same criticisms? There have been many web sites with things like "the earth is only 6k years old, otherwise the space capsule would sink in dust on the moon" or "such and such system is irriducibly complex and totally disproves evolution." Do you feel as passionately about that, or is it that it is not taught in the classroom? Do you feel as passionately about other areas of science that have been "mistaught", like cell theory or genetics, or do you not worry about them since they [haven't yet/don't] offend American Christian belief systems?

BreakApart

Evolution has NEVER solved how the particles that created the big bang came into being. Sorry, "from nothing-> something" CANNOT happen in evolution it goes against science.

Evolution has never attempted and will never attempt to solve this problem. That would be the Big Bang and other theories, which are different.

Thomas

 

[JupiterJones]

Do you feel as passionately about other areas of science that have been "mistaught", like cell theory or genetics, or do you not worry about them since they [haven't yet/don't] offend American Christian belief systems?

Man, what a great question. I do worry a great deal about how education is handled. I graduated from the School of Arts and Sciences with a double major Math/Biology. I had originally been in the School of Education and wanted to teach High School for this very reason. During the course of getting my BS, I realized that Education was a bit too full of BS for me, so I transferred to the School of Arts and Sciences, graduated, and went into business for myself. In my 30's I returned to college to pursue Theological Studies and acquired a decent liberal arts education in the process. The difference in my ability to think is hard to describe.

Back to your question, I am more passionate about this issue because I was, at one time, fooled by the hack science of the Young Earth Creationist. (Much as I once was fooled by the definitive claims of the Naturalist). To an uneducated person (I mean a lot more here than a college degree) the arguments sound great, and are often valid at their base. However, I soon found that some of what these guys put out are just as misleading as High School Evolutionary theory. My biggest disappointment coming from the realization that they know a lot of this is hooey, but are still promoting it because it still works to bring about a desirable end. A good example here is the whole bit about cosmic dust levels vs. age of universe.

I am much more impressed with the ID Theory guys, and have not detected any intentionally misleading "science". Which puts them one above the Naturalist who write High School textbooks.

The fact that this is a controversial subject and the fact that I have been burned by both the Naturalist and the Creationist has lead me to develop an interest in this subject. So to finally answer you question, there is more to my interest than Christian sensibilities.

Are incorrect. I can go into greater detail if necessary. For example, I think it would be fair to say that evolutionary theory is a strong theory b/c it has high predictive powers, high degrees of conscilience with other branches of science, factual fundamentals, and a large and varied body of evidence. Theories should be measured as if they are flash lights; the stronger ones reveal more (higher explanatory powers) than the weaker ones. This is in contrast with a "bucket" model, where each time you find a piece of evidence you put it in the bucket and then measure the theory by the weight of the bucket. Additionally, science in general obviously doesn't deal with truth in the absolute sense, but more of a "near truth." So that has to be taken into consideration. It is not the same as philosophy and it is not suppose to be.

I believe that you are actually interested in truth, rather than just proselytizing. Thanks for hanging with the discussion this long. I don't know if you read my recent post (9 above this one). I give a better explanation there as to the inadequacies of inductive reasoning in particular, and the scientific method in general. I will say that both inductive reasoning and the scientific method are tremendous tools and beneficial to point us in the right direction. I don't think that you will find much in that post to disagree with.

I have come to a point where I believe that all four sources of knowledge (same post) are necessary and beneficial.

I will never defend Young Earth Creationism, as a lot of what I read is a bunch of hooey. This being said, I have also come to believe that the Bible is a trustworthy source. A literal reading of the Bible does not require Young Earth Creationism. As I have said earlier, where the Bible is silent it is Biblical to turn to science for answers. I do not feel that Evolutionary theory has made it's case. In particular, what has come to be known as the Cambrian Explosion of life brings serious doubts as to the process of microevolution and natural selection being adequate to generate new phyla is such a short period of time. I have seen nothing to convince me that micro-evolutionary changes can accumulate over time to produce the changes necessary to diversify life to the scale present today. (BTW, there exist less phyla now that existed during the Cambrian Explosion of life - showing a tendency toward less diversity over time).

Is Darwinism compatible with the available evidence? Yes. Is Darwinism required by the available evidence? No.

I am heading into a very busy weekend, but will happily address your questions on Monday.

I don't really think I can provide hard and fast evidence to back up my claim of censorship, as I only have personal experience and the testimony of others. Looking around the internet, you will find a number of testimonials that are similar to what I have said. You will also find a number or articles written in biased publications that recount similar tales. However, there is a history of resistance to the publication of new ideas in controversial subjects. I will try to provide some background info to demonstrate that this sort of thing does happen, even if I cannot provide proof about this particular instance of censorship. One thing that you should be able to admit, if I am correct in my accusation, then the publications practicing this censorship would certainly not be trustworthy sources of information concerning the censorship. In fact, IF I am right the only source you would expect to find this information would be the biased journal that do publish the testimonials. The lack of conclusive proof should not be construed as evidence that the accusations are false. As I said, I do have personal experience with this censorship, and personally know others that have likewise suffered. The numbers of testimonials should carry some evidentiary weight.

I will provide more information to back up what I claim to be misrepresentation in High school textbooks. This will take the form of showing what is being taught (with sources) as well as what should be being taught based on accepted scientific practices. I have this information on my computer at my weekday job in anticipation of this request, but will not have ready access to it until Monday.

 

[UThomas]

Pastordon

I think you're missing the boat a little with the inductive vs deductive arguements. Wouldn't you agree that this would not be specific to evolutionary theory, but to science as a whole? If you can say inductive reasoning proves nothing, then would it also be fair to say that deductive reasoning proves nothing, since deductive proofs prove certainty only as much as that conclusion is already contained in the premis? Deductive arguements do not increase our information. Inductive arguements can increase knowledge significantly, but then the trade off as I mentioned indirectly is that they do not deal with "truth" in the absolute sense (does that mean it proves nothing?). While deductive proof is good for logic and mathematics, induction is the relevant method in empirical sciences. By its very nature, all scientific proofs are tentative (no absolute truth demands it). But that is not to say they are all equally tentative, since inductive evidence comes in varying degrees of strength, while deductive evidence does not (its hit or miss).

what has come to be known as the Cambrian Explosion of life brings serious doubts as to the process of microevolution and natural selection being adequate to generate new phyla is such a short period of time. I have seen nothing to convince me that micro-evolutionary changes can accumulate over time to produce the changes necessary to diversify life to the scale present today. (BTW, there exist less phyla now that existed during the Cambrian Explosion of life - showing a tendency toward less diversity over time).

The Cambrian Explosion is an area where more knowledge is needed, but to say it is damning of the theory is inaccurate. First of all, while it is described as a "sudden expolsoion" from one point of view, we are still taking about millions of years which could have been more than enough (for punctuated equilibrium, etc). Additionally, several independent lines of new evidences suggest that animal phyla began to diverge well before the Cambrian period (instead during the mid-Proterozoic, about a billion years ago). Also, the fact that there are less phyla now than during that period in no way shows that tendency. That would be a fallacy of extrapolation. There are two additional problems with this line of thinking in general.

First of all, it is negative arguementation, as if IDC was the only alternative. Positive evidence is needed to prove IDC, not negative arguementation against evolutionary theory.

Secondly, it is a standard "God of the Gaps" arguement. Do you think IDC can explain the Cambrian explosion better? Do they even attempt to? Or do they just point to a scientific question mark and say "well, God must have done it"?

The lack of conclusive proof should not be construed as evidence that the accusations are false. As I said, I do have personal experience with this censorship, and personally know others that have likewise suffered. The numbers of testimonials should carry some evidentiary weight.

In the same sense, the lack of "conclusive" proof of evolutionary theory should not be construed as evidence that it is false. At any rate, we're not working volume here as far as evidence goes, I would just like something more than "I heard from such and such web site..." or even worse, just throwing it out there "yea, their is no accademic freedom across all academia in the US with regard to evolutionary theory"

Lastly, I don't understand why you continually refer to science as naturalism. Naturalism does not explicitly deny the existance of God, He just has no place there. And thats how it should be, its a necessity of method.

Thomas

 

[JupiterJones]

I think you're missing the boat a little with the inductive vs deductive arguements. Wouldn't you agree that this would not be specific to evolutionary theory, but to science as a whole? If you can say inductive reasoning proves nothing, then would it also be fair to say that deductive reasoning proves nothing, since deductive proofs prove certainty only as much as that conclusion is already contained in the premis? Deductive arguements do not increase our information. Inductive arguements can increase knowledge significantly, but then the trade off as I mentioned indirectly is that they do not deal with "truth" in the absolute sense (does that mean it proves nothing?). While deductive proof is good for logic and mathematics, induction is the relevant method in empirical sciences. By its very nature, all scientific proofs are tentative (no absolute truth demands it). But that is not to say they are all equally tentative, since inductive evidence comes in varying degrees of strength, while deductive evidence does not (its hit or miss).

I don't know that I missed the boat, so much as I am on a different boat. (<== sound disturbingly like something moonbeam would say).

Yes, I would agree that this would apply to science as a whole, not just to evolutionary theory. The point I would advocate at this point is to say that while science is certainly a useful tool, it is not the end-all be-all source of truth/knowledge.

You make an interesting observation in that deductive arguments do not increase our information, while inductive arguments can increase knowledge significantly. Offhand, I would say that you are wrong in this, but cannot think of an example at the moment. Let's say that you are right. The proper order, then, to declare something as true is to induce a theory, then deduce it. Evolutionary theory would be in the middle of this process, having been induced, but not yet deducible. Thus, not yet declarable as truth. My main concern here is how definitively evolutionary theory is taught. (I will explore this a tad more as I explain why I use the term naturalist instead of scientist - below)

First of all, it is negative arguementation, as if IDC was the only alternative. Positive evidence is needed to prove IDC, not negative arguementation against evolutionary theory.

This was merely presented as one example of why I do not think that Darwinism is sufficient. The positive evidence for ID (I'll leave off the C because ID Theory allows for the biological engineering of organisms already present) is interesting, if somewhat in need of more work. I did read a bit about irreducible complexity and found it intriguing. The rebuttals against this tend to be pretty weak.

Secondly, it is a standard "God of the Gaps" argument. Do you think IDC can explain the Cambrian explosion better? Do they even attempt to? Or do they just point to a scientific question mark and say "well, God must have done it"?

ID Theorist should look at each scientific question mark and determine if this could be due to natural causes (first choice) or if it would require intelligent intervention. I would say that a great deal of effort needs to be put into investigation natural causes. I am in disagreement with the complete abandonment of the possibility of intelligent intervention - if for no other reason than closed-mindedness is most often detrimental to the search for truth.

At this point I usually get some sort of pointed comment about my own closed-mindedness, to which I will somewhat agree. However, Naturalist claim to base their beliefs solely on an objective analysis of available evidence. I do not. Godel proved that no system of logic can determine all truth.

I would like to refer you to a book by the late Stephen J. Gould: The Pandas Thumb. In that book, there is a chapter entitled Double Trouble, in which he almost admits to the failure of evolutionary theory to explain the Angler Fish. I say almost, because as he is writing about the problems this particular animal brings to the surface (very similar concerns here to Irreducible Complexity), he then says basically; Oh well, it must be due to natural selection since there are not alternatives. (I'm being pretty free and loose here - go to the library and read it for yourself). This sounds very similar to your God-in-the-gaps comments, except there is the pointing to a scientific question mark and relying on natural selection rather than intelligent intervention. Reading the chapter, which is more likely? Apply this same question to Behe's Irreducible Complexity examples.


In the same sense, the lack of "conclusive" proof of evolutionary theory should not be construed as evidence that it is false.

Absolutely. Evolutionary theory might be true. But that?s all we can say for sure, and that's all we should teach in High School.

Lastly, I don't understand why you continually refer to science as naturalism. Naturalism does not explicitly deny the existance of God, He just has no place there. And thats how it should be, its a necessity of method.

I don't refer to science as naturalism, the two are not the same. I do, however, refer to those who depend solely (or claim to) on an objective analysis of the available evidence as naturalist. It is my opinion that they are making the choice to ignore truth. The epistemological sources of knowledge (Intuitive, Authoritative, Logical, Empirical) are all of value. And are all utilized, even among those Naturalist who claim to only rely on one or two. To ignore (or claim to ignore) any of these is to choose to ignore a potential source of knowledge.


One Example of misleading information in High School Texts

The Miller-Urey Experiment

Background:

Many modern scientists believe that living cells arose from chemical building-blocks that formed on the early Earth. In 1953, Stanley Miller used an electric spark to simulate lightning in a mixture of gasses thought to resemble the Earth's primitive atmosphere, and produced some of the chemical building-blocks of life. The experiment is pictured in many biology textbooks to show that scientists now understand an important early step in the origin of life. But scientists determined over a decade ago that the Earth's primitive atmosphere was probably nothing like the mixture of gasses Miller used, and now acknowledge that the origin of life's building-blocks remains unexplained.

Consider the following High School Textbooks:

Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, Third Edition (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1998). ISBN 0-87893-189-9

Burton S. Guttman, Biology, (Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1999). ISBN 0-697-22366-3

Peter H. Raven & George B. Johnson, Biology, Fifth Edition (Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1999). ISBN 0-697-35353-2

William D. Schraer & Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life , Seventh Edition (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999). ISBN 0-13-435086-3

Cecie Starr & Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, Eighth Edition (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1998). ISBN 0-534-53001-X

The way it should be handled:

Does not include a picture or drawing of the Miller-Urey apparatus, or else accompanies it with a caption pointing out that the experiment (though historically interesting) is probably irrelevant to the origin of life because it did not simulate conditions on the early Earth; text mentions the controversy over oxygen in the primitive atmosphere, and includes extensive discussion of the other problems faced by origin-of-life research, acknowledging that they remain intractable.

Actually Taught:

Includes a picture or drawing of the Miller-Urey apparatus with a misleading caption claiming or implying that the experiment simulated conditions on the early Earth; the text contains no mention of the experiment's flaws, and leaves the student with the impression that it demonstrated how life's building-blocks formed on the early earth.

 

[rahvin]

One Example of misleading information in High School Texts

The Miller-Urey Experiment

Background:

Many modern scientists believe that living cells arose from chemical building-blocks that formed on the early Earth. In 1953, Stanley Miller used an electric spark to simulate lightning in a mixture of gasses thought to resemble the Earth's primitive atmosphere, and produced some of the chemical building-blocks of life. The experiment is pictured in many biology textbooks to show that scientists now understand an important early step in the origin of life. But scientists determined over a decade ago that the Earth's primitive atmosphere was probably nothing like the mixture of gasses Miller used, and now acknowledge that the origin of life's building-blocks remains unexplained.

http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/precamb.htm

Evidence for a lack of free oxygen in the Earth's early atmosphere
Urananite and pyrite are readily oxidized today, but are found unoxidized in Precambrian sediments

There are no early PC iron oxides (no red beds)

Banded iron formations appear in stratigraphic record in PC
1.8 - 2.5 bya

Evidence from Precambrian soils shows O2 was only about 2% of modern levels

Chemical building blocks of life could not have formed in the presence of O2
amino acids
DNA

The simplest living organisms have an anaerobic metabolism
They are killed by oxygen
Includes some bacteria (such as botulism)
Includes some or all Archaebacteria or Archaea which inhabit unusual conditions

http://tidepool.st.usm.edu/crswr/millerurey.html

In 1953, Miller and Urey tested the "Oparin and Haldane* hypothesis1 by attempting to simulate in a closed system devoid of living organisms the conditions presumed to exist on the early earth's surface. They found that by subjecting a mixture of gases (water vapor, hydrogen, methane and ammonia) to energy, a variety of amino acids and other organic compounds were synthesized in a few days. Numerous replications and modifications of this experiment in many laboratories have yielded similar results. Chemicals formed include all 20 amino acids, sugars, lipids, the purine and pyrimidine bases found in nucleic acids and ATP (when phosphate is also present). These results are obtained as long as oxygen gas is not present in the reaction mixture. Results of this experiment caused a new era of experimentation and analysis of possible primordial components. Coupled with this were the new important discoveries by astrophysicists of the presence of organic molecules in the interstellar medium and in meteorites. However, at present, the relevance of the experimental results of Miller and Urey are being questioned, since the atmospheric conditions used in the experiment are not thought to accurately reflect those of the early earth.

The only real challengers to the Miller-Urey experiments have been snowball earth and metorite seeded theories. Snowball has way to many holes in it. The metorite one is interesting, in fact Sagan discovered there is organic material (all the building blocks of the amino chains) constructed in the rings of saturn every day and europa is bombared with the organic material every day. But the Miller-Urey experiment still provides that life can spring from nothing, a rather important discovery and considering the lack of oxygen in our atmosphere confirmed by geological analysis (in the link above) I find little to discredit the theory. It's still good science. Are you upset that most physics books discuss ether as well? Does it equally outrage you?

 

[Quixfire]

Thanks Tanner, I love you too!

 

[JupiterJones]

Rahvin (& Uthomas)

As you will see there is controversy, which is exactly the point of my criticism of the High School texts. Thank you Rahvin for showing the conclusions of one side of this debate. Below, you will see a very brief sample of the other side, which seems to have the more compelling evidence.



The question of the origin of oxygen in the atmosphere takes on added interest because advocates of two mutually exclusive theories are both on the project. Ohmoto of Penn State believes that oxygen in the atmosphere has been at steady levels through time, while James F. Kasting, Penn State professor of geosciences and meteorology, believes that oxygen levels in the early atmosphere were very low, less than 1 millionth of the present atmospheric level, and increased rapidly to nearly present levels 2.2 billion years ago.

Penn State Researchers To Explore Origins of Life

The answer depends, of course, on how you define "beginning," and what you mean by "air." According to Hiroshi Ohmoto and Takeshi Kakegawa of Penn State's department of geosciences, however, "by about 3.4 billion years ago" (more than three billion years before the earliest dinosaurs) "the atmosphere contained appreciable amounts (more than approximately one percent of the present atmospheric level) of free oxygen."

Ohmoto and Kakegawa, working with Donald Lowe of Stanford University, reached this conclusion after analyzing the sulfur contained in nuggets of pyrite found in rocks known to be 3.4 billion years old.

The Genesis of Oxygen

The ozone shield would have protected land-based biological forms from the effects of cosmic radiation. Development of the ozone shield requires an oxygen-rich atmosphere. Our finding of ancient biomats on land is an important addition to a growing line of evidence suggesting that the rise of atmopsheric oxygen took place more than 2.6 billion years ago."

New Evidence Of Life On Earth 2.6 Billion Years Ago

Modeling the Long Term Evolution of Atmospheric Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide

 

[UThomas]

The point I would advocate at this point is to say that while science is certainly a useful tool, it is not the end-all be-all source of truth/knowledge

Of course, it isn't suppose to be. Do you really think that this level of discussion on the nature of TRUTH (as opposed to science truth) should be brought to middle and highschoolers? I do not. They need to learn where the Balkans are first! Since it applys to all of science, why has this type of interest has never been raised on cell theory or gravity either?

Evolutionary theory would be in the middle of this process, having been induced, but not yet deducible. Thus, not yet declarable as truth. My main concern here is how definitively evolutionary theory is taugh

So what if it is not declarable as truth in the absolute sense? Why fuss over evolutionary theory specifically then if this is a science issue? Why not gravity? Or geology? Or astronomy? As I mentioned this earlier you can inductively go from observation to theory, and then deductively go from theory to confirmation. But confirmation of absolute truth is not the realm of science. Do we know absolutely that the sun will rise tomorrow? No. But we teach it as fact even more strongly than any part of evolutionary theory.

I did read a bit about irreducible complexity and found it intriguing. The rebuttals against this tend to be pretty weak.

I'll make a few quick points about irreducible complexity (by Behe) since you haven't seen any good ones

1) It is circular logic. Something is irreducibly complex if it can't be broken down and maintain some level of functionality (in other words, irreducibly complex). Part of the problem is that Behe has not shown authoritatively that certain systems are irreducibly complex. Many examples in his book (like the eye) have been addressed since its publishing.

2)This is a God of the Gaps arguement. Each time you take an "irreducibly complex" system and remove a part and it still functions, now this new system is said to be "irreducibly complex." Similar to Zeno's paradox, no? Its also similar to the "transitional fossils" arguement. Each time you find one, you open up two new holes.

3)It is also an arguement from ignorance. Not knowing how something works is not the same as evidence against. This would apply to Goulds comments as well. Before genetics we didn't know the mechanics of genetic variation, good thing we didn't write the theory off then with what were at the time the frontiers of science. Behe has just pushed the frontier forward. I'm not going to blind myself by lack of knowledge though.

How do you suppose we should teach INTUITIVE KNOWLEDGE? It is not practicle, it is not objective, and it conflicts with the seperation of Church and state. It has no place in science OR naturalism. Science does not and will not use intuitive knowledge, it can't. We don't use it in mathematics either. How about teaching our 1st graders that 1+1 = 48 if the God of Chalk so wills it? Who are you to say they are wrong, since we have now introduced a non objective measure of truth? It may be valuable in philosophy, but it is not valid in science, math, or logic.

Your example (The Miller-Urey Experiment) is a straw man, since this thread has been about evolutionary biology, which is a process and not an origin theory. rahvin addresses it well at any rate.

Do you feel that ID is a stronger theory than evolutionary theory? Or do you simply feel it is an alternative? Or is it a convenient God of the Gaps theory?

Thomas

 

[rahvin]

Below, you will see a very brief sample of the other side, which seems to have the more compelling evidence.

I fail to see how anything you are posting supports any of the conclusions you are trying to make. In the first link I posted it should be noted that geological evidence suggests a 2% (of existing) concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere. This is a very low concentration, in fact it's low enough that the radical damage that free oxygen would cause would almost be negated. This is in fact supported by geological evidence that shows a complete lack of oxidation of common minerals in sediments of the period. This oxygen would serve as a minor threat to developing life structures. In fact considering that the first life evolved in water the saturation of that oxygen in water would have been in the ppb level. Hardly threatening.

In fact I would say that nothing you have presented provides any evidence against Miller-Urey. Without evidence against the science, it stands as a good demonstration of early scientific inquiry and that life could arise from non living matter under the right conditions. (you act as if the miller-urey experiement was only done once, they have continued modifying and duplicating the experiment and in fact have created proto-cellular structures).

I'll say it again, until the theory is proved false (and it hasn't been yet) it has a place being taught in any science text book. It was an important contribution to science. As I said, are you offended when physics books mention ether?

 

[JupiterJones]

Your example (The Miller-Urey Experiment) is a straw man, since this thread has been about evolutionary biology, which is a process and not an origin theory. rahvin addresses it well at any rate.

As you will see above, I refuted rahvin's refutation, thus proving the existence of the controversy. This is no straw man, as it is merely the first item on a list that you asked me about (see another below). The subject there is how politicized this subject has become and how high school texts knowingly teach bad science.

How do you suppose we should teach INTUITIVE KNOWLEDGE?

I don't. Intuitive knowledge is a fact (research epistemology). I would be satisfied if we teach good science in science class.

It is circular logic. Something is irreducibly complex if it can't be broken down and maintain some level of functionality (in other words, irreducibly complex).

This is not circular logic. You are playing on words. This is IF-THEN logic. IF something cannot be broken down and maintain some level of functionality (thus allowing natural selection to occur) THEN it is irreducibly complex.

This is a God of the Gaps argument. Each time you take an "irreducibly complex" system and remove a part and it still functions, now this new system is said to be "irreducibly complex." Similar to Zeno's paradox, no?

No. An Irreducibly complex system has a particular definition. Thus, if a part is removed and it still functions then it was not irreducibly complex. Zeno's paradox is a geometrical fallacy.

It is also an arguement from ignorance. Not knowing how something works is not the same as evidence against. This would apply to Goulds comments as well. Before genetics we didn't know the mechanics of genetic variation, good thing we didn't write the theory off then with what were at the time the frontiers of science. Behe has just pushed the frontier forward. I'm not going to blind myself by lack of knowledge though.

Your faith is admirable, as is Gould?s. How about we just teach evolutionary theory (and origin theory) for what it is, instead of giving an illusion of definitiveness to the theories? What does it hurt to teach a High School student that this is our best guess based on the evidence?

This would seem to be more about indoctrinating than educating.


Another Example of misleading information in High School Texts:

In the following recent texts:

Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, Third Edition (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1998). ISBN 0-87893-189-9 Burton S. Guttman, Biology, (Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1999). ISBN 0-697-22366-3

George B. Johnson, Biology: Visualizing Life, Annotated Teacher's Edition (Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1998). ISBN 0-03-016724-8

Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology, Fifth Edition (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000). ISBN 0-13-436265-9

Peter H. Raven & George B. Johnson, Biology, Fifth Edition (Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1999). ISBN 0-697-35353-2

William D. Schraer & Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life , Seventh Edition (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999). ISBN 0-13-435086-3

Cecie Starr & Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, Eighth Edition (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1998). ISBN 0-534-53001-X

A brief history of Haeckel's Embryos:

Darwin believed that all animals with backbones (including humans) evolved from fish-like ancestors, and he thought the best evidence for this was that the early embryos of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are similar to fish embryos. Many biology textbooks carry drawings (originally by Ernst Haeckel) to illustrate this, and claim that human embryos possess "gill slits." But embryologists have known for over a century that such drawings are false, and that early embryos of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals do NOT resemble fish. Human embryos pass through a stage when they have wrinkles in their necks, but they never have "gill slits."


How this should be presented:

Does not use misleading drawings or photos, and does not call pharyngeal pouches "gill slits"; points out that vertebrate embryos are most similar midway through development, after being dissimilar in their earliest stages; acknowledges this as an unresolved problem for Darwinian evolution, and considers the possibility that Darwin's theory of vertebrate origins could be wrong.

How it is presented in the above texts:

Uses Haeckel's drawings (or a re-drawn version of them) without mentioning the dissimilarity of earlier stages; claims that early similarities in vertebrate embryos are evidence for common ancestry and Darwinian evolution; may call pharyngeal pouches "gill slits."

 

[JupiterJones]

fail to see how anything you are posting supports any of the conclusions you are trying to make. In the first link I posted it should be noted that geological evidence suggests a 2% (of existing) concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere. This is a very low concentration, in fact it's low enough that the radical damage that free oxygen would cause would almost be negated.

Rahvin,
Then I would suggest you actually read the links I posted, as well as doing some side research. There is compelling evidence of levels 50%+ instead of the 2% your link mentions. My point is that this controversy has compelling evidence on both sides, and so one side has no place being taught as fact.

This is in fact supported by geological evidence that shows a complete lack of oxidation of common minerals in sediments of the period.

Ohmoto's theories are in fact supported by evidence, which is readily available for you to read. What I posted was the first few of many, many links discussing this information. The question about the experiment is that the mixture of gases used might not (in actuality, probably does not) mimic the early atmosphere and that this bit of information should be included anytime the experiment is taught.

As I said, are you offended when physics books mention ether?

Ether is mentioned in an historical setting. What exactly is your point?

 

[UThomas]

I refuted rahvin's refutation, thus proving the existence of the controversy. This is no straw man, as it is merely the first item on a list that you asked me about (see another below).

First off, people refute that we landed on the moon, that doesn't make it controversial. But for this point, this is a straw man b/c it is not part of evolutionary theory as taught in highschools. There are probably hundreds of things mistaught over the years in every subject of highschool.

Intuitive knowledge is a fact (research epistemology).

Your own description describes it as "It is based on feelings rather than hard, cold "facts.""

The only fact of intuitive knowledge is the awareness of self and appearance (known without the use of reason). Science does not and will not use intuitive knowledge, it can't. Otherwise it too becomes objective.

This is not circular logic. You are playing on words. This is IF-THEN logic. IF something cannot be broken down and maintain some level of functionality (thus allowing natural selection to occur) THEN it is irreducibly complex.

No. Something cannot be broken down and maintain some level of functionality = irreducibly complex. You are using a self defining term which results in circular logic.

No. An Irreducibly complex system has a particular definition. Thus, if a part is removed and it still functions then it was not irreducibly complex. Zeno's paradox is a geometrical fallacy.

This is a God of the Gaps arguement, b/c it provides no other solution from a ID point of view. Just fills in one ? with God. Zeno's paradox is a geometrical fallacy, which is exactly my point and why I equated it to this. Everything that is proved not to be irreducibly complex by a new regression is now itself irreducibly complex until it too... and on and on...

How about we just teach evolutionary theory (and origin theory) for what it is, instead of giving an illusion of definitiveness to the theories? What does it hurt to teach a High School student that this is our best guess based on the evidence?

Why specify evolutionary theory and origin theories such as the Big Bang? Why not all of science? My point is you choose to address these two areas b/c they offend your religious sensabilities, since the same arguements could be made on many many fields across science. I was under the impression that when we taught science theory in highschool that the point is it is our best *educated* guess. Gravity is our best educated guess. Are we indoctrinating when we teach that as fact? Or the sun rising each 24 hour day? Because those are not truths in the absolute sense.

Your example on "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is fair. But to be equal handed, what field of science could you not go through a few dozen highschool books and find errors. You're almost nit picking at this point, since even if the examples weren't wrong I'm sure there are still thousands of teachers would would continue to teach it wrong anyway, along with every other subject. This is the difference between the theoretical and the practicle. If we throw out evolutionary science, we'd have to do it with most of biology as well. Or do we put a big comment on the back cover of all books that says "may or may not be 100% true, may or may not be taught correctly. Good luck."

Thomas