To teach, or not to teach

I’ll try to be as reasonable and gentle as I can, but it seems to me that you have a very skewed idea of what science really is about and what constitutes valid evidence, and even what evidence exists for evolution.

I’m trying to get a handle on what you believe. When you say that you believe in creation as in Genesis, do you mean Young Earth Creationism? You think it was a literal 6 days that took place a few thousand years ago? I’m guessing not, because you mentioned the fossil record, and no YE creationist would give any weight to fossils at all.

I do, however, believe in evolution within a species. That is what I think Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands when he studied the birds, reptiles, etc. I think it is that natural course of living and experiences that cause beings to evolve within their species to adapt to their surroundings.

This is the most puzzling to me. If you believe that mutation and selection occur, what is it that keeps speciation from occurring? If you don’t believe that speciation ever occurred, how do you account for different species in the fossil record over time? Is there anything that would convince you? What if we observed speciation in a laboratory?

If the fossil records that some use to claim the theory of evolution as being fact (which many do, believe it or not) were used in court they would be classified as ‘circumstantial’ as there is nothing to prove 100% that mankind is the direct descendants of our typically referred to evolutionary ancestors.

This sounds like a sound bite from some anti-evolutionist. For one, it’s silly. There’s no reason why science and the law would or should be held to the same standard. But, aside from that, the statement is incorrect. Some of the strongest evidence for evolution is based on the same science that does DNA matching in criminal and paternity cases. And a DNA match is considered incredibly strong evidence in court.

Where I have a problem is, such as occurred in my high school biology class, when evolution is presented as fact and when no mention of it being a theory is made. Do not mislead these kids – if you’re teaching something, do not falsify it and pretend it is fact when it is not.

This is just a misconception of the word “theory” as it applies to science and every day use. I wasn’t in the same bio class as you, but it was in the same school, and I remember learning about the “Theory of Evolution” quite clearly. I also remember learning about the “Theory of Gravity.” I think that drawing a parallel between the two is quite applicable.

It is a fact that matter exerts a force on other matter. The theory of gravity attempts to explain this. There have been several different variants (Newtonian, Relativistic, SuperString, Graviton, etc), but there is not, to my knowledge, any non-gravetic scientific theory that attempts to explain why mass exerts force on other mass (since Aristotle, who’s arguably pre-scientific).

It is a fact that animals change over time. The theory of evolution attempts to attempts to explain that. There have been several different variants (Lamarkian, Darwinian, etc.) but there is not, to my knowledge any non-evolutionary scientific theory for the diversity of life.

Evolution, like Gravity, is taught in science class because it is the only scientific theory. The fact that it’s easier, for an unscientific person, to verify that stuff falls than it is to verify that life evolves does not in any way weaken the scientific evidence for evolution.

Oh, and not to monopolize the conversation, but I found it interesting that the big reason for the ruling in the Dover, PA case was that it was an obvious cover for putting religion into public schools. The major proponents of the ID program were on record supporting teaching creationism in schools.

So the recent decision is, I’m sure, not the end of attempts to force religion back into science classes.

@ Ian’s first comment:

I’m trying to get a handle on what you believe. When you say that you believe in creation as in Genesis, do you mean Young Earth Creationism? You think it was a literal 6 days that took place a few thousand years ago? I’m guessing not, because you mentioned the fossil record, and no YE creationist would give any weight to fossils at all.

I believe that the everything was created in 6 days. Are those the 24-hour days we know now? I don’t know and to be honest, it doesn’t matter. Each “day” by God’s viewpoint could have been 1,000,000 years. It makes no difference to me. When I mentioned fossil records it was mostly to make two points:

1) that the creation of the Bible won’t be proven by using fossils, carbon dating, etc. As I said, you can’t prove that something wasn’t there and then all of a sudden it exists in it’s complete form.

2) Looking at the bones from one species and the bones from another and saying “Species A evolved into Species B based on these similarities” isn’t proof enough to make evolution fact.

I don’t think that just because primates and humans (just as an example) have similarities in bones and things that it makes an undeniable conclusion that we used to be monkeys. I’m trying to think of a better way to explain what I mean, but I’m failing miserable and for that you’ll just have to bear with me.

If you believe that mutation and selection occur, what is it that keeps speciation from occurring? If you don’t believe that speciation ever occurred, how do you account for different species in the fossil record over time? Is there anything that would convince you? What if we observed speciation in a laboratory?

When I said I believe in evolution within a species what I meant was this: If one species of bird eats only worms but there aren’t enough worms to go around I think that natural situation will/could cause a group of those birds to evolve (mutate, change, whatever word you chose to use) and develop physical traits to allow them to seek other foods such as nuts, etc. – which could also cause physiological changes in those birds (different beaks for example). I do not believe that a reptile can evolve into a warm-blooded mammal and eventually grow wings and fly. Both of these are crude examples, but I think you get my point.

As far as different species in fossil records over time…? Some species may have existed and gone extinct, just as one possibility. I mean, hell, researchers just recently found a new mammal in the rainforest a few months back that they’ve never seen before. If we don’t know of all the living things we currently share the planet with, with all we know now, how do you expect us to know all the different species of animals that may have existed at one time? Does that mean that because fossil records show one species that no longer exists, it must have evolved into something else? Nope.

There’s no reason why science and the law would or should be held to the same standard. But, aside from that, the statement is incorrect. Some of the strongest evidence for evolution is based on the same science that does DNA matching in criminal and paternity cases. And a DNA match is considered incredibly strong evidence in
court.

Why shouldn’t scientific facts be held up to the same “beyond a shadow of a doubt” scrutiny that criminal evidence is (or rather, should be)? Besides, I wasn’t trying to say that fossil records need to be run through a court or anything. It was an example of, when the evidence in support of evolution is looked at for indisputable facts alone, it doesn’t flesh out. There are a plethora of assumptions made, in regards to evolution, with little to back them up other than similarities in the tangible remains.

This is just a misconception of the word “theory” as it applies to science and every day use.

There’s no misconception here. The dictionary perfectly defines ‘theory’ as “an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.”

I wasn’t in the same bio class as you, but it was in the same school, and I remember learning about the “Theory of Evolution” quite clearly. I also remember learning about the “Theory of Gravity.” I think that drawing a parallel between the two is quite applicable.

The only experience I have to go off of is my science class with Mr. Smith (it could have also been his ‘green tea’ that always made him a bit goofy, but I digress) As you know, not everything in science is still a theory – and all I’m saying is those things that are theories should be definitely taught as such. Of course there are lots of things that aren’t tangible that we don’t refer to as theories – the wind and air – because those things are undeniable. Technically, yes, gravity is still a theory, not because people don’t believe it, but because you can’t make tangible the force that pulls objects to the ground – it can’t be put in a jar and shown to people. Unfortunately, not all kids use common sense in class. So, if we have two things that are theories, but only tell pupils one is a theory, there are kids who will incorrectly interpret the remaining one as fact. To presume that pupils will correctly figure out which scientific things are theories and which are not on their own, when left unsaid, has the potential for a faulty learning experience.

It is a fact that animals change over time.

Of course!

Evolution, like Gravity, is taught in science class because it is the only scientific theory. The fact that it’s easier, for an
unscientific person, to verify that stuff falls than it is to verify
that life evolves does not in any way weaken the scientific evidence for evolution.

Since you keep bringing up gravity, let’s look at the evidence of these two theories and see which one appears less creditable when compared to the evidence of the other:

Gravity: When you demonstrate gravity you drop something and it lands on the ground. You don’t have to make assumptions or infer anything to see that it is very real. There’s no room for disagreement.

Evolution: Two people can look at the skull of a monkey and the skull of a human, side-by-side, and there can be varying opinions on them about whether or not one is a descendant from the other. There can be doubt.

Until something is proven to exist it must be taught as a theory. As I mentioned in my original post, I have no problem with evolution being taught in schools, just as long as the kids are told (mostly for those who may not already know) that it’s a theory.

@ Ian’s second comment:

So the recent decision is, I’m sure, not the end of attempts to force religion back into science classes.

As long as mankinds religious beliefs differ, there will always be someone or some group trying to push their beliefs onto others. That’s where tolerance and compassion for each other comes into play. =)

Gravity: When you demonstrate gravity you drop something and it lands on the ground. You don’t have to make assumptions or infer anything to see that it is very real. There’s no room for disagreement.

Evolution: Two people can look at the skull of a monkey and the skull of a human, side-by-side, and there can be varying opinions on them about whether or not one is a descendant from the other. There can be doubt.

That’s a bad analogy. The analogous observation to things falling is that animals are different.

Aristotle explained things falling by saying that a body tried to return to it’s “natural” position on the earth. He also thought that a more massive object would return to this natural state more quickly.

Galileo made a further observation: Heavy things fall just as fast as light things. Aristotle’s philosophical argument no longer made sense in the face of the facts.

Now, for evolution: The biblical explanation for the differences between animals was that they were all created that way. About 6000 years ago.

But then we observed a truly staggering amount of evidence that didn’t fit that model:
1. The fossil record. There are animals there in great numbers that aren’t around (or are very well hidden).
2. There are animals here now that show up nowhere in the fossil record.
3. There are animals that show up in the fossil record starting at a certain point, exist for a time, and then do not exist.
4. There are animals that show up in the fossil record at a certain point and still exist today.
5. The general complexity of organisms in the fossil record increases as time goes on.

And a _lot_ more. These observations do not support the idea that all life was created at the same time. Nor do they support the idea that animals do not change (much) over time.

There’s so very much more, but that’s all I have time for now.

I don’t think that just because primates and humans (just as an example) have similarities in bones and things that it makes an undeniable conclusion that we used to be monkeys.

Ok, first of all, we didn’t used to be monkeys. Evolutionary theory does not claim that. What it does claim is that we had a common ancestor. We also have a common ancestor with horses, fish, and ameobae, in order of length of time to common ancestor.

You’re also mischaracterizing the evidence that evolution is based on. Part of it is based on the fossil record, but that’s far from all of it. There is a huge body of genetic research and observations of evolution occurring now that adds to it.

Claiming that current observations “don’t prove” what happened in the past is as foolish as saying “Well, sure, gravity caused that plate to fall and break when you just dropped it, but that doesn’t prove that gravity made my glass fall to the ground two weeks ago.”

could also cause physiological changes in those birds (different beaks for example). I do not believe that a reptile can evolve into a warm-blooded mammal and eventually grow wings and fly.

All I can say is that this makes no sense whatsoever. If birds’ beaks can change shape, why couldn’t another animal’s arms change shape? Ever seen the bone structure of a bat or a flying squirrel? Those are just arms that they fly with! Even more, the flying squirrel is pretty obviously half-way inbetween a normal earthbound mammal and a flying one. And there are already animals that are warm-blooded sometimes and cold-blooded at others.

If you believe that minor changes can take place, there is absolutely no logical reason to believe that a larger change couldn’t take place. A large change, after all, could just be (and probably is) the sum of a bunch of smaller changes.

To presume that pupils will correctly figure out which scientific things are theories and which are not on their own, when left unsaid, has the potential for a faulty learning experience.

There’s no misconception here. The dictionary perfectly defines ‘theory’ as “an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.”

Yes. There is a misconception. The fact that you went to a dictionary definition for the word “theory” is further evidence. The word “theory” has a specific application in science. It’s part of the scientific process, along with “observation” “hypothesis” “experiment”, etc. The phrase “Just a theory”, which is commonly bandied about by creationists, is an attempt to label valid scientific theories as doubtful by applying the common definition of “hunch”

Everything taught in science class is a theory. Every conceptual structure about how the natural world is is a theory.

Here’s another definition (from dictionary.com. Where the hell did you get yours?):
Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Emphasis mine.

Why shouldn’t scientific facts be held up to the same “beyond a shadow of a doubt” scrutiny that criminal evidence is (or rather, should be)?

I never implied that they weren’t. Just that that was a silly statement to make without some sort of explanation. Science is actually held to a much higher standard than evidence in a court of law. Scientific evidence is tirelessly scrutinized by professionals for validity (as opposed to 12 laymen), is meticulously documented (as opposed to hearing a few witnesses describe what they saw), and is required to be reproducible by those who doubt it. This argument is a non starter.

I believe that the everything was created in 6 days. Are those the 24-hour days we know now? I don’t know and to be honest, it doesn’t matter. Each “day” by God’s viewpoint could have been 1,000,000 years. It makes no difference to me.

What does that even mean? It seems like you’re a biblical literalist… except not for some words. If a day isn’t a day, why call it that? Why not say God created the earth in six plufrgs?

But the important question on which evolution hinges is how long ago this was. In fact, for a bit of science history, it was the evidence for evolution that eventually led to the discovery that the earth was much older than we had previously thought. There was all this evidence of speciation and development, but no one could figure out how that could have happened in the few thousand years that the Earth was supposed to have existed for.

Bear with me here in answering your questions/comments, i’m here alone with the two kids and packing in the midst of answering a comment here and there while they eat, nap and so forth =P

What does that even mean? It seems like you’re a biblical literalist… except not for some words. If a day isn’t a day, why call it that? Why not say God created the earth in six plufrgs?

It should be pretty obvious: It took 6 days for God to create everything. it wasn’t until the 4th day that God created the Sun, Moon and stars. So, the first 3 days were without the sun and moon dictating a full day cycle.

The 24-hour day as we now know it is believed to have originated in 525 AD by Dionysius Exiguus (when trying to figure out when Easter should be celebrated) and was adopted in England at the Synod of Whitby in 664.

That’s why i say those first 3 days may have been much longer than our current days and from that 4th day on, it’s doubtful they were exactly as long as they are in our time, especially if it’s generally accepted that the 24-hour day idea wasn’t even around until about 525 years after the birth of Christ.

The biblical explanation for the differences between animals was that they were all created that way.

Where does i say this? To my knowledge, the only place it mentions how God and his creation of the animals is in Genesis 1:20-25:

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

There’s no mention of God not allowing a species to change within itself. Do you honestly think that God would only allow animals to multiply but not adapt to their respective environment? Now that, kind sir, is silly.

Here’s another definition (from dictionary.com. Where the hell did you get yours?):

Well, since we’re both guilty of picking and choosing the definition we liked from dictionary.com here is the full definition from there (emphasis mine):

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Everything taught in science class is a theory. Every conceptual structure about how the natural world is is a theory.

Photosynthesis is not a theory. How seeds turn into plants is not a theory. How grass grows is not a theory. Varying blood types are not a theory. How things melt at high temperatures, is not theoretical.

Yes, there are loads of things discussed in science classes that are theories. But certainly not all are. We teach about wind and air in science, but everybody knows they’re not theories – and we don’t call them theories.

And that’s why I’ve simply said, teachers (mine didn’t, yours did – a perfect example of the need for consistency) need to make sure to specify which lessons are about theories and which are not.

But then we observed a truly staggering amount of evidence that didn’t fit that model:
1. The fossil record. There are animals there in great numbers that aren’t around (or are very well hidden).

2. There are animals here now that show up nowhere in the fossil record.

Perhaps we just haven’t found those fossils yet. Example: Just because there are fishes at the bottom of the sea that we don’t have a fossil record history of, doesn’t mean the fossils aren’t there – we just haven’t stumbled upon them yet.

3. There are animals that show up in the fossil record starting at a certain point, exist for a time, and then do not exist.

Again, that doesn’t mean we’ve found all the fossils to explain the history of that creature. But yes, of the fossils that we have found, they would appear to come out of nowhere. That is hardly concrete, 100% proof of evolution. Neither is the lack of fossil record after a certain point – see my response to #1.

4. There are animals that show up in the fossil record at a certain point and still exist today.

Okay. I’m not sure what this is all about but, yes, not all animals die off. There are doves and ravens around today and there were doves and ravens mentioned in the bible thousands of years ago.

5. The general complexity of organisms in the fossil record increases as time goes on.

True. But an organism becoming more and more intricate over time does not mean anything, other than they’ve adapted to their environments, circumstances and have become a better thing. Example, humans have changed physically over time from living in caves to where we are now. That could be attributed to the change of a species over time.

Well, since we’re both guilty of picking and choosing the definition we liked from dictionary.com here is the full definition from there (emphasis mine):

You’re missing the point. I provided a definition that fits reasonably well with the scientific concept of a theory.

Photosynthesis is not a theory. How seeds turn into plants is not a theory. How grass grows is not a theory. Varying blood types are not a theory. How things melt at high temperatures, is not theoretical.

Yes. They are. They are very well supported theories, partly because they are easily demonstrable. It is easy to observe ice melting. It is easy to observe plants dying when you take away the sunlight. The theory is about how it works. Why, exactly, do things melt? Well, we have theories about molecular bonds, quantum states, etc. that explain that. How do plants get energy from plants? Well there are theories of electron transfer, chemical pathways, etc. Similarly with the others. All theories.

4. There are animals that show up in the fossil record at a certain point and still exist today.

Okay. I’m not sure what this is all about but, yes, not all animals die off. There are doves and ravens around today and there were doves and ravens mentioned in the bible thousands of years ago.

You missed the point of this one. Horses, for example, all of a sudden show up in the fossil record a certain length of time ago. Prior to that, there weren’t any. And we have quite a few horse fossils. It would be truly remarkable if we just happened not to find any horses older than the ones we did. I’m not talking about a few thousand years. A few thousand years is barely any time at all for evolutionary scales. I’m talking about hundreds of millions of years of fossil record without horses and then, all of a sudden, horses, from that point on to today.

5. The general complexity of organisms in the fossil record increases as time goes on.

True. But an organism becoming more and more intricate over time does not mean anything, other than they’ve adapted to their environments, circumstances and have become a better thing. Example, humans have changed physically over time from living in caves to where we are now. That could be attributed to the change of a species over time.

You missed the point of this one, too. I’m not claiming that, say, a given animal used to be simple and is now complex. I’m saying that the whole of life started simple and is now complex. Millions of years where we only find fossils of plants. Millions of years with simple insect/crustacean life. Millions of years of only sea dwelling life. Millions of years of only reptilian life, before birds, mammals, etc.

Science isn’t always enough for me to hang my hat on, just because ‘science says so.’ Remember when the greatest minds in science said the earth was flat? Well, they were wrong (i realize you already know this). And when when they said there was the big bang theory. Then they said that wasn’t accurate anymore. Etc… etc… etc…

The bottom line is this: Evolotion is a theory; not fact. Just as to most the Bible’s explanation of creation is theory and not fact.

You and I trying to convince the other of something that, as of yet, cannot be proven 100% is futile. If you really wish to keep going on this we can (although I’ll be out of town for the weekend) but I don’t see any point in us continuing this discussion of one theory against another, ya know? I’m not trying to put a draconian end to this, but neither of us is likely to change our view =)

A diplomatic end to a slightly heated debate. You are of course correct that neither of us will convince the other.

As a parting (friendly) shot, may I recommend the short essay by Isaac Asimove calld The Relativity of Wrong. It discuesses the “Remember when the greatest minds in science said the earth was flat? Well, they were wrong” argument. In fact, Asimov uses successive ideas about the curvature of the earth as his example.

The upshot of it is that, yes, science often makes mistakes. But each successive mistake is a much smaller one, suggesting that each iteration of scientific theory is asymptotically approaching correctness.

Oh, uh. <href>

Stupid vbscript bulletin boards have softened my mind.