It has been pointed out that actually having individual scientists having their own preconceptions and biases and even clinging doggedly to theories is not altogether a bad thing. In fact, I would say that some of the best scientists are sometimes quite dogmatic and opinionated. One reason this can be useful is that sometimes data against a hypothesis or theory does in fact turn out to be incorrect, so having everyone immediately abandoning a theory in this case is a bad thing. However, if the evidence continues to accumulate against a theory over time, then those who still cling to the theories will face an ever tougher battle keeping other scientists on their side. In the long run, the good science seems to win out.
I think the long run has already happened with respect to evolution and competing theories.
—An unscientific opinion, unprovable one way or the other.—
Well, I don’t think it is a matter of being unprovable or unscientific: it’s a particular assertion, and argument, both metaphysical and logical. And I think it is not only false, but… well, let just leave it at that I don’t have a very high opinion of it at all, in regards to evolution or belief.
—When all the evidence is weighed the theory of evolution becomes laughable.—
I don’t think anyone asked you to clarify this yet, but do you mean that the idea that (historically) it is what happened is laughable (i.e., that’s not at all what the evidence supports), or that the very idea is implausible (for it to ever happen anywhere)? Those are two very very different critiques of evolution (under which we often lump both a historical description of life on earth and an abstract descriptive theory)
Right. Einstein didn’t agree with Heisenberg on Uncertainty, and never really did accept it, and in doing so forced Bohr and others to come up with better evidence in favor.
Others have addressed the distinction, but I would like to emphasize that the points I listed are the logical core of Darwin’s theory of natural selection. The Origin of Species was written, in part, to argue that the facts are as presented, and that the resulting conclusion is logically valid. The other purpose of Origin was to argue that such a simple process could, indeed, result in the entirety of variation we see in the biological world today, as well as account for what we interpret as life in the past. That is, he specifically argued for natural selection as being sufficient to account for both small-scale changes (adaptations) and large-scale changes (speciation and the origins of higher taxa).
While we have modified and built upon Darwin’s original view, natural selection is still deemed to be the primary creative force of evolution, and, as such, does indeed form the core of “full blown evolutionary theory”. As others have alluded, if you accept natural seelction as valid, then you have a much weaker case against evolution as a whole.
**
Can you provide some examples of science landing “on the side of creation/flood”?
**
Obviosuly, there are those who disagree, despite having weighed the same evidence. Why do you think they have arrived at what you deem a “laughable” conclusion?
**
I, for one, have looked at the evidence for myself. And I see that evolution has occurred, and is occurring. I have seen numerous comparisons, and in each case, creation science fails to explain any of the available facts without resorting to convoluted ad hoc arguments. To what extent have you examined the evidence for evolution?
**
I realize that this quote, along with the others you listed, were simply cut & pasted from various pro-creation sites (see here for a verbatim version of the above quote), but you shoudl realize a couple things:
G. G. Simpson made his statements during the '40s and '50s - a lot has happened since then to cause a re-focus on how eovlution occurs, as well as what the phylogeny of horses looks like.
What he said about the “uniform, continuus transformation” having never happened is exactly in line with current evolutionary thought. Darwin believed that speciation did occur through the slow transformation of lineages; we no longer believe this to be the case.
This quote by Raup restates what I just did, yet you have included here as an alleged argument against evolution: why? It is a common tactic among creationists to “quote mine” - look for quotes made by famous scientists, take them out of context, and twist them to suit their purposes. Here, I commend you on actually giveing a citation as to when / where Raup made the statement, but it would appear you haven’t actually read it.
[hijack]This is why home schooling must be abolished-- I’m serious, why are parents permitted to present this garbage to their children as if it were a legitimate education? They are doing a tremendous disservice to their kids and they are utterly failing to prepare them for any kind of serious acadamia. Kids have a right to a genuine education, not religious brainwashing. Please write your congessmen. End home schooling now![/hijack]
I admit I’m also troubled by home-schooling. But (as a practicing scientist, even) I think there are far more damaging prejudices that can/will be inculcated that way than anti-science. IMO, anti-science tends to negatively affect the individual more often than the society.
Example: “I can treat my compound fracture with this homeopathic preparation” vs. “I believe you are less than human because you have a different skin color than me.”
Counter-example: The Kansas school board.
That being said, I 'm very curious about why a bona fide biblical literalist feels the need to dispute evolution on its own terms. If you belive, you believe, and the argument that ‘all the evidence of your sense was put there by god to confuse you’ should be just as powerful (or more so) than any attempt to claim the evidence is true but is being misinterpreted.
Retrogenes are genes which are flanked by the kind of repeat sequences you see when a piece of RNA is spliced into the genome. The obvious inference, then, is that a retrogene is created when an RNA copy of another gene is spliced in, and then natural selection introduces mutations which can either create a new, functional gene, or can inactivate it, creating a pseudogene.
So, where did this RNA copy come from? The answer turns out to be easy, because retrogenes have a number of distinctive features. They lack introns, which are noncoding segments which interrupt many genes. They also end in a long tail of “A” nucleotide bases. As it turns out, when the cell wants to use a gene to make protein, it makes a “working copy” of the gene out of RNA, and then processes that RNA by removing its introns and adding a “poly-A tail.” So the natural conclusion is that retrogenes are caused when messenger RNA is spliced back into the genome.
This explanation makes a number of other things about retrogenes fall into place. Retrogenes can be found far from the original gene they were copied from, as you would expect if a copy of messenger RNA were floating around inside the cell before it got spliced back into the genome. (The other main gene-duplicating process, unequal crossing-over, makes copies which are adjacent to each other.) Moreover, sometimes retrogenes are cut short, and it’s known that the enzyme which splices the new sequence in can terminate too early.
So, here we have the evolutionist explanation for retrogenes. It explains the following properties:
Flanking sequences
No introns
Poly-A tail
Can be found far from the “parent gene”
Can be cut short
Valerie, can you provide an explanation for these properties which proceeds from the hypothesis of separate creation of individual kinds?
(FWIW, you can see my whole FAQ on evolution and molecular genetics here.)
As Darwin’s Finch has said, valerie has taken a quote out of context. Based on the title mentioning conflicts between Darwin and and current paleontology Dr. Raup might well have been speaking of reasons for the considerable modification of Darwin’s ideas with the passage of time.
The quote was from 1979. In 1983 Dr. Raup contributed an essay to the book Scientists Confront Creationism (W.W. Norton, New York, edited by Laurie R. Godfrey) in which Raup wrote the following:
“This essay is inspired by my rereading of “Science and Creation” by Boardman, Koontz, and Morris (1973). “Science and Creation” is not the most recent treatment, but it is one of the best in the sense of being a clear and unambiguous statement of the case made by contemporary creationists against the conventional wisdom of evolution. The same basic ground is covered by later books such as those by Wysong (1976) and Gish (1978). I will be concerned here only with the strictly geological and paleontological parts of the argument. Gish (1978) has popularized the notion that the rocks and the fossils say NO to evolution. As I will show here, the rocks and the fossils say YES to evolution!”
The essay in the book, which valerie can doubtless obtain through her local library, also has a section quite similar to the passage she quoted and Dr. Raup provides three possible explanations for breaks in the fossil record, all of which he says are probably germane. The passage is too long to quote here and includes a lot besides what valerie wrote.
So despite the attempt to enlist Dr. Raup on the anti evolution side by the source from which the quote was taken, it just won’t work.
You can’t be serious. How can a person with a signature line extolling freedom of speech be opposed to home schooling? Do you seriously want a Constitutional amendment requiring all American children to be educated by the government? That’ll fix everything.:rolleyes:
IANAC (I am not a Creationist) but I strongly support the right of people to home school their children, if they wish. Would you ban private schools and religious schools as well?
My pre-schooler is partially deaf, but academically very advanced for his age. He is eligible for special services in our local public school, but my wife is afraid he will be bored by learning stuff he already knows. At the same time, the private schools in our area, which are more academically advanced, have no experience in teaching kids with any special needs. We are considering homeschooling as one option. You think it would be a good idea to take that choice away from us?
Laughing Lagomorph,
I was being facetious, sorry for any offense. What I actually feel is that children should be taught facts and not mythology. While I do not literally want to abolish home schooling, I feel very strongly that home schoolers should have to meet a minimum statndard of academic legitimacy. Creationism is not a legitimate biological theory and should not be permitted to be taught as such (any more than a home schooler should be able to teach that 2=2=5 or that Benjamin Franklin was the first king of America). I realize that you can’t prohibit parents expressing religious views to their kids, but I also think that all educators, private, public, religious or home schoolers, should be mandated to teach basic evolutionary theory. Home schooled kids should be able to pass a test and correctly answer questions about such things as natural selection and the age of the earth, whether they really believe it or not. What I object to is any educator, in any context, being permitted to teach falsehoods as fact.
OK, no offense taken. I was wooshed. I think your proposal would be unworkable in practice, though. It brings us perilously close to messing with SOCAS from the OTHER side, if you follow me.
Hell, my fifth grade public school science teacher taught many falsehoods as fact. She wasn’t a creationist, just old fashioned, ill informed, and stubborn!
Of course I don’t think it follows that just because some teachers of elemenary grades are ignorant in science we should knowingly allow nonsense to be taught.
I agree that it would not be workable to actually prohibit the teaching of creationism, but I think it would still be reasonable to require that students be able to answer questions about evolution as well. They can “disbelieve” if they like, as long as they understand it.
I went to Catholic schools as a kid, even though I never really believed in God. I had to take religion classes and answer questions about Catholic doctrine. Rather than getting huffy and offended at having to learn a theology I had no belief in, I simply learned the material and prefaced my answers with phrases like. “The catholic church teaches…” or, “the current church view is…”
This allowed me to pass the classes by showing that I had a respectful understanding of the material even though it contradicted my personal viewpoints. I think it can be the same with evolution. Homeschoolers can teach creationism if they want as long as the kid can also show a basic, coherent understanding of what “science has shown.”
BTW, good luck with your son. I have some experience in educating special needs children as well as with gifted ones. Those who are both, like your son, need a specific kind of guidance and I think that home schooling is very appropriate in a situation like that. (as long as he still gets a lot of social interaction with other kids, which I’m sure you’ve already thought about)
Who decides that 2+2=4 is a fact? Scientific method does not reall prove, it only disproves. A literal reading of Genesis can be disproven in almost every particular. Evolution is not an opinion or a belief, it is solid, dependable theory (not a hypothesis) which has been repeatedly confirmed by every conceivable method which can be applied to it. It is the same with atomic theory. The atom has never been directly observed by human beings. Does that mean that atomic theory is only a matter of faith? Should “alternate” theories to the atom be taught?
What should be on the test should be a basic, high school understanding of evolution. How is it defined? What is natural selection? How long does it take? What is radiocarbon dating?Perhaps a basic timeline for the descent of homo sapiens. Nothing too complicated, just a basic FAQ.
And yes, I think that all kids should have to take the test, not just home schooled. I trhought it went without saying that public and private school kids were already tested on this material.
