Wow. Biblical literalists lead museum tours.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there is any evidence against it, why would it be forbidden to address it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is according to this “linky linky” the OP posted. I quoted it in my first post.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue"> Again, what's not science does not belong in the classroom. Should astrology be there? Should the four humors idea of health be taught in class? </font>

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there were no evidence against it, there would be nothing to address.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the thing. The entire thing you aren't realizing is that the evidence against evolution isn't evidence at all in the scientific sense. That's why it's not in science class.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Truth be told, I would not be able to argue with that. But, with relatively little effort, I found 15 or so scientists with very impressive credentials and who specialize in this field who disagree. They go into pretty good detail as to why they disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue"> First off, nearly none of these guys' are specialized in this field one is a J.D., etc.). Grasse is actually a zoologist so I would guess he's an exception. But I would hardly characterize him as "France's most distinguished zoologist" </font>

[ QUOTE ]
I did a fairly extensive search on them, and found no evidence that they are not to be believed. I’m not saying I automatically think that they are right, &amp; others are wrong...

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue"> The problem when you only search for evidence that supports your point is that you always find it. Of course their arguments seem reasonable becasue they aren't being put into the broader picture. The random point mutation that they LOVE to give us statistics on is only ONE part of where the variability that underlies evolution comes from. Things like sexualy reproduction and recombination (to name to) play huge roles but we never see these taken into account in their cute little math problems.</font>

[ QUOTE ]
but I just find it suspicious that so many of you discard what they have to say without putting any effort into looking into their research. It’s as though most of you are guilty of doing the very thing that you accuse theists of doing... ignoring any evidence that doesn’t give you the desired results.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue"> You seem pretty reasonable and I like most of your posts but this is pretty irritating. How do you know that we haven't looked at it? One of the classes I teach is for nonmajors and I have to deal with these kinds of questions a lot. So I have looked into it in great detail.

There are fatal flaws with the rationale used to debunk evolution. Of course you won't see these because they only present the one side.</font>

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Again, what's not science does not belong in the classroom. Should astrology be there? Should the four humors idea of health be taught in class? </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

One of us (or both) must be misunderstanding the other here.

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> The problem when you only search for evidence that supports your point is that you always find it. Of course their arguments seem reasonable becasue they aren't being put into the broader picture. The random point mutation that they LOVE to give us statistics on is only ONE part of where the variability that underlies evolution comes from. Things like sexualy reproduction and recombination (to name to) play huge roles but we never see these taken into account in their cute little math problems.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I didn’t search for evidence to “support my point.” To the contrary, I tried to find evidence that these men were wrong or incompetent. The reason I searched for that is: if I post something stupid, someone here is sure to find evidence of that &amp; make me look like an idiot. I would rather find that out on my own and use my little “backspace” key before I hit “submit.” [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> You seem pretty reasonable and I like most of your posts but this is pretty irritating. How do you know that we haven't looked at it? One of the classes I teach is for nonmajors and I have to deal with these kinds of questions a lot. So I have looked into it in great detail.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you &amp; sorry. I’m not trying to be irritating. In fact, if you are irritated... I have worded things poorly. Do you believe this forum if full of well studied scientific minds? Maybe you are an exception, but... well, just look at the recent airplane thread... How is that thing 7 pages? It is definitely not the result of well studied people to have a 7 page argument on something that is answered on page one.


[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> There are fatal flaws with the rationale used to debunk evolution. Of course you won't see these because they only present the one side.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool. Help me out. Where are sources that debunk what these men have written. It is a (understandable) mistake to think that I blindly accept their theories. All I am saying is that I don’t blindly accept the other theories either. You follow me yet?


EDIT: On second thought... I think you &amp; I agree entirely! This is exactly what I am saying and nothing more:[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> The problem when you only search for evidence that supports your point is that you always find it .</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Truth be told, I would not be able to argue with that. But, with relatively little effort, I found 15 or so scientists with very impressive credentials and who specialize in this field who disagree. They go into pretty good detail as to why they disagree. I did a fairly extensive search on them, and found no evidence that they are not to be believed. I’m not saying I automatically think that they are right, &amp; others are wrong... but I just find it suspicious that so many of you discard what they have to say without putting any effort into looking into their research. It’s as though most of you are guilty of doing the very thing that you accuse theists of doing... ignoring any evidence that doesn’t give you the desired results.

[/ QUOTE ]
The argument that evolution hasnt had time to happen is a reasonable thing to bring up in scientific discussion. However, it is unreasonable to claim this as evidence against evolution. It is evidence against human understanding and is merely something our theory needs to explain.

Notice the whole argument hinges on a number of assumptions (eg "According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number of mutations necessary to produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five"). One explanation for the discrepancy between time required and time available would be errors in these assumptions. This assumption alone seems highly doubtful to me - in simple organisms I dont believe this is true at all (this isnt my field - first geneticist I asked told me it was demonstrably wrong though). I'm sure each of the assumptions used to build the mathematical model can be challenged or interpreted differently.

Another problem with time-based arguments against evolution is that they usually ignore the natural selection side and just factor in the random element. Random mutation alone hasnt had time to explain all of the complex organisms we see today - but it doesnt happen alone. Mutations happen and form the starting point for the next generation - "good" ones thrive, "bad" ones are rapidly discarded. Including this aspect of evolution into the equations makes it happen much, much faster.

To return to the classroom scenario. I would repeat my previous point, we dont have time for kids to be challenging every assumption and every axiom. There are fundamental problems at the edge of our understanding in any endeavour - physics, maths, medicine, any field you look at has unexplained anomalies. This doesnt mean we are about to abandon our theories as failures - it means we have to think harder about them. Kids are taught the uncontroversial bits - later on they can learn what the problems are at the edges of understanding.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Should we be encouraging students to look for evidence against the theory of gravity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Science 101:

The huge difference is that gravity has been observed, evolution has not.

[Apocalypso]

Yes it has [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Sharkey]

Such as where?

And, please, not the virus canard. A species is a group wherein the members are mutually fertile.

[MelchyBeau]

[ QUOTE ]

Science 101:

The huge difference is that gravity has been observed, evolution has not.

[/ QUOTE ]

ah, but we do not know why gravity acts the way it does. some believe it is a space-time curving factor, wheras others believe its due to particle interaction.

Melch

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Science 101:

The huge difference is that gravity has been observed, evolution has not.

[/ QUOTE ]

ah, but we do not know why gravity acts the way it does. some believe it is a space-time curving factor, wheras others believe its due to particle interaction.

Melch

[/ QUOTE ]

No theory is perfect, but evolution by natural selection can’t even get started.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
we dont have time for kids to be challenging every assumption and every axiom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although it is only speculation, (in this case anyway) I concede that this might be true. The story doesn’t state exactly *why* they deleted the lesson plan. If this is the reason however, it is very poor writing for the author to throw that in there in the context of the story.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
No theory is perfect, but evolution by natural selection can’t even get started.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please expand on this, with links &amp; not just your opinion.