Evolution.. fact or not?

[thegreekdog]

So Player, to rehash my question in the previous post - do you think if Creationism did not exist as a theory, the problems vis-a-vis science in urban public schools would go away? Or do you think there would still be major problems? I ask because our efforts (and by "our" I mean U.S. efforts) should go to what will make a significant difference in schools. For example, hiring experienced and knowledgeable teachers, cleaning up schools from a trash/crime perspective, getting kids to care about learning (including science).

Also, how do you explain Catholic schools teaching evolution and having a more effective impact on teaching students... maybe if we all sent our kids to Catholic schools they'd be getting a better science education.

[joecoolfrog]

So Player, to rehash my question in the previous post - do you think if Creationism did not exist as a theory, the problems vis-a-vis science in urban public schools would go away? Or do you think there would still be major problems? I ask because our efforts (and by "our" I mean U.S. efforts) should go to what will make a significant difference in schools. For example, hiring experienced and knowledgeable teachers, cleaning up schools from a trash/crime perspective, getting kids to care about learning (including science).

Also, how do you explain Catholic schools teaching evolution and having a more effective impact on teaching students... maybe if we all sent our kids to Catholic schools they'd be getting a better science education.

The Catholic Church has reached an accomodation with Science and consequently no longer fears it, therefore it can teach Evolution alongside more spiritual matters. Those who promote Young Earth Creationism do fear Science, if if questions their rigid beliefs they will go to great lengths in order to discredit it. Player is correct that this is not really about religion, not even about Creationism, rather it is about teaching children distortions and lies, its plain wrong !

[thegreekdog]

The Catholic Church has reached an accomodation with Science and consequently no longer fears it, therefore it can teach Evolution alongside more spiritual matters. Those who promote Young Earth Creationism do fear Science, if if questions their rigid beliefs they will go to great lengths in order to discredit it. Player is correct that this is not really about religion, not even about Creationism, rather it is about teaching children distortions and lies, its plain wrong !

I 100% agree with everything you've just typed. That's not what the debate is about (at least for purposes of this thread). I'm not saying Creationism is right. I'm also saying that Creationism should not be taught in public schools, at all, period, end of story. I'm simply saying there is a lot of fight going on about something that has an insignificant effect on science education in this country compared to other factors, which I've mentioned ad naseum throughout this thread. I feel as if I'm banging my head against the wall...

[joecoolfrog]

The Catholic Church has reached an accomodation with Science and consequently no longer fears it, therefore it can teach Evolution alongside more spiritual matters. Those who promote Young Earth Creationism do fear Science, if if questions their rigid beliefs they will go to great lengths in order to discredit it. Player is correct that this is not really about religion, not even about Creationism, rather it is about teaching children distortions and lies, its plain wrong !

I 100% agree with everything you've just typed. That's not what the debate is about (at least for purposes of this thread). I'm not saying Creationism is right. I'm also saying that Creationism should not be taught in public schools, at all, period, end of story. I'm simply saying there is a lot of fight going on about something that has an insignificant effect on science education in this country compared to other factors, which I've mentioned ad naseum throughout this thread. I feel as if I'm banging my head against the wall...

I dont know what these other reasons are though I suspect they have to do with funding and a shortage of good Science teachers, what I would say though is I doubt if there is a concerted effort to promote ignorance in that field. Creation Science is different, it actively seeks to limit education and critical thought, it is designed simply to stunt rather than enlighten. Creation Science is also impacting on those existing problems, its eating up limited funds and discouraging those who wish to teach real Science, if Creation Science went away then yes things would be healthier,albeit perhaps only slightly. Lastly I do think you underestimate the problem, homeschooling (largely driven by an anti evolution agenda ) and the teaching of creationism in schools ,is rising yearly, the numbers are way out of line compared with other industrialised nations.

[thegreekdog]

I dont know what these other reasons are though I suspect they have to do with funding and a shortage of good Science teachers, what I would say though is I doubt if there is a concerted effort to promote ignorance in that field. Creation Science is different, it actively seeks to limit education and critical thought, it is designed simply to stunt rather than enlighten. Creation Science is also impacting on those existing problems, its eating up limited funds and discouraging those who wish to teach real Science, if Creation Science went away then yes things would be healthier,albeit perhaps only slightly. Lastly I do think you underestimate the problem, homeschooling (largely driven by an anti evolution agenda ) and the teaching of creationism in schools ,is rising yearly, the numbers are way out of line compared with other industrialised nations.

For your reference (because you don't know what those other reasons are), the other reasons are, in no particular order and not inclusive (but all of these are more significant obstacles to quality science education than Creationism): (1) lack of funding for public schools, (2) lack of interest by teachers generally, (3) lack of interest in students to learn, (4) lack of interest in parents in their childrens' educations, (5) lack of interest in science generally (probably because kids don't think they can make a living being a scientist.

Because Creation Science seeks to limit education and critical thought, I agree that it is a problem. I don't see it as a major problem compared to those five (and others) listed above. In fact I think it is a decreasing problem. As I stated and which no one has addressed (except Player who agreed with me), the public schools in Philadelphia will not improve with the elimintation of Creation Science. They will improve if any one of those five things I listed above are addressed.

Finally, the teaching of Creationism in schools SHOULD NOT be rising yearly because IT IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! There is a SUPREME COURT CASE on the subject. A link to that case's wikipedia entry is in this thread somewhere.

I am unbelievably baffled and totally shocked by the vehement defense you guys are making that Creation Science is a major impediment to science in the US. I have presented actual valid and logical arguments why Creation Science is a very minor impediment to science throughout this thread. Further, I have shown that I am not in favor of teaching Creation Science in high schools or in any way at all. So, it's not like you're attacking my personal beliefs and it's not like I'm defending my personal beliefs. In any event, it is very disheartening that people apparently think that we should be addressing Creation Science over school shootings, falling test scores, and lack of productivity in students. This is why I am vehemently arguing in this thread.

[PLAYER57832]

The Catholic Church has reached an accomodation with Science and consequently no longer fears it, therefore it can teach Evolution alongside more spiritual matters. Those who promote Young Earth Creationism do fear Science, if if questions their rigid beliefs they will go to great lengths in order to discredit it. Player is correct that this is not really about religion, not even about Creationism, rather it is about teaching children distortions and lies, its plain wrong !

I 100% agree with everything you've just typed. That's not what the debate is about (at least for purposes of this thread). I'm not saying Creationism is right. I'm also saying that Creationism should not be taught in public schools, at all, period, end of story. I'm simply saying there is a lot of fight going on about something that has an insignificant effect on science education in this country compared to other factors, which I've mentioned ad naseum throughout this thread. I feel as if I'm banging my head against the wall...

Here is the deal. I am not asking you to take my word for this, not at all. I am saying put aside what you think, for the moment and go out and see for yourself. Talk to your colleagues, others. Look in your phone book under "churches", drive by a few of the non-mainlines ones and see. Or, maybe look at their websites instead. You are, I believe trained in investigation. See for yourself.

I fully believe you (and anyone else who takes up the challange) will be surprised at how prevalent Creationist views are in your own community.

I believe this because it is true for everyone to whom I have spoken about this (in the US) who was not already aware that Creationisim is big.

[thegreekdog]

Oh, I truly believe there are many thousands and hundreds of thousands of people who believe in Creationism in the US (and throughout the world). There is just no evidence to suggest that they have a significant impact on public school and/or evolution teaching.

[PLAYER57832]

Oh, I truly believe there are many thousands and hundreds of thousands of people who believe in Creationism in the US (and throughout the world). There is just no evidence to suggest that they have a significant impact on public school and/or evolution teaching.

Sorry, but for you to say that means you have not really been paying attention.

Yes, you can easily point to all those other reasons, but dig a bit further. The you find, for example, that while some people really do believe that we should have school vouchers because it will increase competition (despite evidence to the contrary), you also fine a good many who really want to be able to home school their kids or want their religiously based private school to get some of that funding.

I agree that it is hard to say exactly how much of this is directly or indirectly related to creationism. I can say that for 30 years I have been trying to find even 1 person who truly understands Evolution AND still accepts Creationism. I have found none. Zero in 30 years. Yet, I have found the number of people who DON'T understand Evolution or many other basic science concepts to expand. The same mind set that thinks vaccinations are worthless, too dangerous to risk for most kids (as opposed to being a slight risk for a very few kids) is the mindset that can accept Creationism if they happen to become involved in a Creationist church.

The basic problem is that Creationism is a flat out dead end. There have been few threads here on this. What happens every single time? The Creationists either simply say that scientists are wrong or try to come up with reasons why, but really show how little they understand of science. I suspect, for example, you know enough of science to know that Evolution is not a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, etc. I suspect you know that transition fossils exist and that the geologic column is real and exists, even if it is not 100% absolutely and fully understood in every aspect. Yet, if you talk to people around you, I can gaurantee you find many who do not.

How does that affect you? The easiest analogy I can make is of someone trying to practice law in a world that does not value law at all. Jokes aside, our country is really and truly founded upon law. We may have disagreements over sections, exactly what it means or how it should be applied, but without that fundamental idea that yes, what is written down means something, ultimately, the whole system would fail. What is happening now, in science is that this foundation is being torn away.

Apathy is dangerous, but true misinformation is even more dangerous. It is as if someone replaced the Constitution with a document saying that we all have to bow to the Queen of England on everything and that in a world where the British no longer really do. For a while, it might not matter. After all, the Queen is not an evil person, what she puts forward is not so very different from what our constitution says. BUT.... that is purely superficial. I am sure you can imagine quickly why it matters a great deal.

Well, that is pretty much what Creationists do in science. And, their numbers are by no means small, they are not isolated to small towns like this one and Kentucky. This is a very serious issue in much of California, all across the south, in Alaska, Colorado, etc. (just to name those places where I am personally aware of real issues).

Furthermore, the correction is basic, but also very difficult. The correction is to ensure that real science and true science is taught effectively in the schools. Whether you agree Creationism is a problem or not, I think improving science is an issue all can and should get behind. Whether you blame Creationism or not is irrelevant, because this is not an issue that can be tackled other than as facts versus truth. Facts are true whether you believe in the Judeo Christian God, Vishna, Thor or no god.

[thegreekdog]

First of all, I am completely against school vouchers, for whatever that's worth. Second, I do not understand evolution really at all; neither do most of the people I hang around with (which include atheists, Jews, Christian conservatives and the uneducated). You told me to look around me at the people I know. I have. Their lack of knowledge (and my own) has absolutely nothing to do with a belief in Creationist science. It has everything to do with not being scientists and/or not learning about science in school. And their not learning about science in school has more to do with not paying attention in science class and not caring about science and being mugged every day than Creationism.

I feel as though you are not really reading what I'm typing. It's as if you are preaching to someone who is a Creationist. As I've demonstrated, I have the ability (as does the entire Catholic church) to differentiate between my beliefs and science. Maybe a bullet point list will help you understand what I'm saying.
(1) Creation science is not a real science. Science is not about belief, it is about fact. Creationism is about belief, not fact; hence, not a science.
(2) Creationism cannot be taught in public schools. This is A STONE COLD FACT. There is a Supreme Court ruling.
(3) Schools (and by extension science in schools) is in trouble because of things other than Creation science. When you're being shot at or beaten up in school, you aren't thinking about evolution or Creationism. Let's address these problems before we address Creationism.
(4) There are people who teach their kids Creation Science and teach them that evolution is wrong. There are also people who teach their kids that it's okay to hate black people. Are they both problems? Absolutely, 100% yes. Is the former a significant impediment to science in the United States compared to people who get shot at in school, or who have to work to support their families and can't do homework or who want to be lawyers or actors or engineers or potheads or who are going to work in a steel mill? NO, A THOUSAND TIMES NO.

With respect to your analogy to law, let's use that for a second: You say that Creation Science's affect on religion is like a world without law. Really? Creation Science is so pervasive that its effect on science is like the effect of the lack of laws on the law? That is a ridiculous assertion. Your example regarding the replacement of the Constitution is also silly. It's not as if only Creationism is being taught in every public school in the United States. I hate do type this, but the more we get into this the more you sound like a consipracy theorist positing that science is being taken over by Creationism. If people were upset about Creationism, they'd pull their kids out of school and home school them in evolution science. But that's not really happening either. So, all we have to worry about, really, are the people who are pulling their kids out of school to teach them Creation Science. And, really, I'm not worried about that because those people are just hurting their own kids. In any event, I'll concentrate on improving education by ensuring that I support politicians who will clean up dangerous schools, put emphasis on learning, and improve scholarships and grants for science, rather than railing against people who have an insignificant effect on education. I'll leave it to you to fight against Creationists.

[PLAYER57832]

You put a lot in that post.

1. For you, perhaps talk of Creation science is a "red herring", a side point. The basic issue is that we need to teach better science, better critical thinking in schools.

2. I come at this from the Creationist perspective because the thread was in response to a statement about Evolution made by jay, who is definitely a Creationist.

3. Why does it matter that you, those around you, know so little of science?

I am perhaps not the best person to explain because science is just to much a part of who I am and how I think that it is hard for me to step outside. However, literally everything you do is affected in one way or another by science.

The bottom line is that while you may not agree that Creationist teachings are a cause , I believe you do agree that lack of science education in our schools is a major issue and a real problem in the US right now. The solution is to ensure that better science is taught, to do a better job as adults of understanding science.

4. Regarding my analogy to the law... right now we have laws as our foundation and we still have science as a foundation. However, if you found a significant movement to undermine the very use of law in our society, I believe it would concern you LONG before it got to be so widespread and pervasive that we had no laws any longer. In fact, I know so because much of what you say about liberaterianism is exactly that sort of point. THAT is the analogy I am drawing. You want to say that Creationism is not and will not be a problem until it has already been fully implemented in our public schools. I say that is far,far, far too late. I say that any widespread movement to plain degrade and undermine science is harmful, just as harmful as any such movement would be to undermine the law. And, as far as that Supreme Court ruling. Yes, it is the law. However, you know that laws are only as good as the enforcement. How many schools really have the ability and willingness to fight these issues? IN truth, your attitude "it really does not matter... who really cares about Evolution" (more or less) is why this IS a problem.

[neanderpaul14]

[Durrge]

[PLAYER57832]

Except what does this have to do with Evolution being fact or not?

[neanderpaul14]

[Snorri1234]

A kind and loving god would never allow Gremlins 2 to be made.


There, argument done.

[neanderpaul14]

A kind and loving god would never allow Gremlins 2 to be made.


There, argument done.

And let's not forget the third Matrix movie.

[PLAYER57832]

A kind and loving god would never allow Gremlins 2 to be made.


There, argument done.

And let's not forget the third Matrix movie.

Yes, except this is the "Is Evolution true?" Thread, not the "Is God real" thread...

[neanderpaul14]

[TheProwler]

I'm convinced that microevolution occurs.

I'm not convinced that macroevolution occurs, or has ever occurred.

The general idea behind evolution is that we adapt and basically become "better". At least, that is my understanding.

If this is true, why are we so physically weak? I mean, take the ape-like creatures that we define as early man. Scientists will agree that they were physically much stronger than us. Much more like a chimpanzee or a gorilla. So why, through evolution, would be become weaker? I don't buy the answer of "Because we are smart and created tools to do the work." I'd say that explains why a non-athletic human that works a desk job and doesn't get much strengthening exercise is weaker than a power lifter. But why isn't a human power lifter as strong as a gorilla of the same weight that sits around eating leaves all day? Why would our muscle tissue become so inefficient? Even with tools, I think we work as hard as early man - at least farmers and many construction workers, etc. do. Especially if we go back several centuries. Life was physically hard. So why would, through evolution, we lose our strength?

In fact, I think most scientists would tell you that (through microevolution) modern man is physically stronger, on average, than men of just a few hundred years ago.

I say that through evolution, we should become stronger, not weaker. And if this is the case....did we really evolve from ape-like creatures?

Macroevolution means one species evolving from another. Have we ever witnessed this...I mean, actually seen it happen. Honestly, for a species to all concurrently change to such an extent that, all of a sudden, a new species is developed. This means two parents produce offspring that is a new species (and therefore, could not breed with either of the parents' species). And this happens on such a large scale that this new species actually survives!?! This is based on my understanding that no two different species can produce fertile offspring . For instance, a horse and a donkey can make a mule. But a mule is infertile.

You know, I've often heard "This new species has been discovered". But they don't say "and it evolved from this other species." Doesn't anyone ever think "Hey, God, or someone or something else, just made another one!"?

[StiffMittens]

I'm convinced that microevolution occurs.

I'm not convinced that macroevolution occurs, or has ever occurred.

The general idea behind evolution is that we adapt and basically become "better". At least, that is my understanding.

If this is true, why are we so physically weak? I mean, take the ape-like creatures that we define as early man. Scientists will agree that they were physically much stronger than us. Much more like a chimpanzee or a gorilla. So why, through evolution, would be become weaker? I don't buy the answer of "Because we are smart and created tools to do the work." I'd say that explains why a non-athletic human that works a desk job and doesn't get much strengthening exercise is weaker than a power lifter. But why isn't a human power lifter as strong as a gorilla of the same weight that sits around eating leaves all day? Why would our muscle tissue become so inefficient? Even with tools, I think we work as hard as early man - at least farmers and many construction workers, etc. do. Especially if we go back several centuries. Life was physically hard. So why would, through evolution, we lose our strength?

In fact, I think most scientists would tell you that (through microevolution) modern man is physically stronger, on average, than men of just a few hundred years ago.

I say that through evolution, we should become stronger, not weaker. And if this is the case....did we really evolve from ape-like creatures?

Well, what is stronger? At this point gorillas still exist basically because we haven't killed them yet. An individual grasshopper isn't much of a threat to anything, but a plague of them can decimate large swaths of vegetation. Can chimps survive in virtually any environment on this planet? Sure chimps are pretty smart and pretty strong, but they don't build ships and sail around the world colonizing other lands.

[TheProwler]

I am referring to pure physical strength. You cannot argue that being physically weaker, having less efficient muscular activity, is a positive trait.

Is this a troll to which people refer?

[StiffMittens]

I am referring to pure physical strength.

Is this a troll to which people refer?

Obviously. My point is that why should evolution solely focus on physical strength?... as if evolution actually focuses on anything. Evolution is a phenomenon that occurs over a period of time. Whatever traits that get passed along from generation to generation, that also benefit the survival of a group of organisms, will continue to do so (sometimes at the expense of other traits which have become superfluous anyway).

[StiffMittens]

You cannot argue that being physically weaker, having less efficient muscular activity, is a positive trait.

It's not a question of being a positive trait, but rather an immaterial trait if a different trait serves the species more efficiently or effectively.

EDIT: Or perhaps not immaterial, but less crucial. Some species have adapted to their environment in such a way that there physical strength is a crucial factor in their survival. Other species have adapted to their environment using traits other than sheer physical strength. It is unnecessary for some creatures to be physically powerful because they have developed speed, or camouflage, or toxic secretions, or whatever else to defend themselves against predators.

[TheProwler]

I am referring to pure physical strength.

Is this a troll to which people refer?

Obviously. My point is that why should evolution solely focus on physical strength?... as if evolution actually focuses on anything. Evolution is a phenomenon that occurs over a period of time. Whatever traits that get passed along from generation to generation, that also benefit the survival of a group of organisms, will continue to do so (sometimes at the expense of other traits which have become superfluous anyway).

Do you believe physical strength *ever* became superfluous?

[StiffMittens]

I am referring to pure physical strength.

Is this a troll to which people refer?

Obviously. My point is that why should evolution solely focus on physical strength?... as if evolution actually focuses on anything. Evolution is a phenomenon that occurs over a period of time. Whatever traits that get passed along from generation to generation, that also benefit the survival of a group of organisms, will continue to do so (sometimes at the expense of other traits which have become superfluous anyway).

Do you believe physical strength *ever* became superfluous?

Perhaps superfluous was too strong a word. Just less crucial. See the edit in my previous post for more.