Pharyngula: Explore Evolution gets another drubbing — I’m always on the lookout for the latest strategy to destroy the teaching of science in the schools and to replace it with the nonsense that the earth was created intact 6000 years ago. The latest involves a book called “Explore Evolution” and the strategy is the buzz term “strength and weaknesses.” Another code phrase to be on the lookout for is “neo-Darwinism” whatever THAT is.
If you’ve been following the creationist strategy lately, you know that one of their efforts is to push a new and awful textbook, Explore Evolution, in conjunction with the various political bills to endorse a “strengths & weaknesses” theme in the public school science curriculum. Explore Evolution is the type specimen for that teaching technique; it contains nothing but imaginary problems in biology presented in a dueling opinions format, with creationists writing sloppy distortions of biological ideas coupled with creationists writing laudatory explanations based on Intelligent Design creationism.
bobbo said: “Kiddies are so malleable…”
Jesuits said: “Give us a child until he’s seven and he’ll be ours for life”
I don’t think Darwin even considered the creation of life just the origin of species. That’s a fine line to be sure but Darwin’s theory of evolution doesn’t really cover what or who created life as we define it. It covers the evolution of life which is blasphemous to the church in it’s own right, i.e. how could anything God creates need to be perfected – and yes there are many arguments from theologians who believe evolution is an extension of God’s will or that it is because of mans sinful nature, etc.
I side with the Scientific Method and those that use it theorize that the Earth is much older than 6,000 years. To be sure it’s still a theory and is subject to scientific debate. But the evidence certainly diverges from the Earth being only 6,000 years old. I doubt we’ll ever know how life was created on our planet but I do believe that we will eventually understand the mechanisms that give rise to life as we define it.
#32–GF==I don’t think there is any debate on how the earth formed==you can look at stars being formed and dying. Planets will be measured next.
The picture is pretty complete and detailed with new wrinkles coming along from time to time to make it more detailed and “magical.”
Without googling, I’m thinking they have 3-4 completely different ways to estimte the age of our earth and it is pretty much 5.5 Billion years ago?
There is no “Young Earth Creation” theory at all. Its not theory, its BS that won’t sprout a seed. “Old Earth Creation” is nothing but Young Earth Creation for folks who can still be shamed by the obvious.
#33–Fusion==I like the hot vent theory. Lots of heat and energy protected from the ultraviolet light.
I also like that in a universe of space and time, sentient life is a natural to be expected natural evolution “of the universe.” It makes sense with large parts of it observed and the remainder “forceable” in the laboratory.
I think the outlines of biogenesis are well understood. Like building a house, your start with the foundation, then walls then roof. What the bible thumpers want to hang their case on, and the too polite scientists won’t call them on, is whether doors or windows were framed in first.
I think some of you are just being hurtful, reminding Earth of how old she is. Personally, I don’t think she looks a day over 3 billion, and she’s to be congratulated on her youthful appearance.
Does science trump religious beliefs? That is the question that for a long time has never been in question. Now science has proof in some cases that directly questions these beliefs. It will be intersting how this will affect how we view religion in the future.
Or will we start to question science?
#35, I don’t think a house is a good analogy to something that purportedly constructed itself.
#38–SL–ALL ANALOGIES fail at some point. Thats why they are analogies and not the thing itself.
So, on the point you make, you are WRONG. This is an analogy about how something is built==thru natural selection or by design. A House or replicating life makes little difference on the point being made.
Your better point would be to say “Its how the foundation was created that is the issue–not the house that follows.” But to that I would say–move the analogy down to the “building blocks” of life and once again the BUILDING analogy holds. Amino acids, proteins, the bonding/capture ability of the carbon ring, energy and water to provide the environment–another “foundation” by analogy.
Thinking by analogy takes intelligence, knowledge, and imagination. Sounds like you lack all three.
#39, no, the issue for people is the house.
It’s one thing to say that under a special set of conditions, amino acids can form (which has been shown), and that you may eventual get some form of rna to form as well. But then where does the need for a surrounding membrane to form a “cell” come from, and how does it even come to be? Were the nucleotides cold one day and decided to get their phospholipid buddies next door involved in the action? When was it decided which molecule was going to be the one in control of the others? And at what stage did they say “oh shit, we need some organelles too”?
Organization is the problem to be answered, not that you have a pile of parts. And the fact that your layman’s knowledge justifies your arrogance to call other people, who may not see these things as intuitively true as you do, stupid is more interesting than the actual topic.
And at this level, I think you are misusing the term Natural Selection. I’m not sure how much of an “evolve or die” imperative there is for amino acids.
# 23 teach said, “I don’t see why they can’t just teach both and let the kids decide which to believe”
Then would you have them teach the creation according to Norse mythology, too? (Funny how religion we do not believe is mythology, huh?) How about Hindu theology. Some interesting creationing going on there! Teach religion in church and at home. Teach science in schools.
There is ample evidence that early earth possessed the conditions to form organic molecules that could have, given a few millions years, finally formed a primitive life. I don’t need a comet or an alien but admit the possibility as more likely than God.
Religion is, IMHO, a reaction to the fear of death. Like the virgins awaiting an Islamic martyr, it gives us something to hope for when our mortal remains lie rotting. Once you accept a life after death you need to have a god and once you have a god you come up with theist explanations for everything. That’s religion!
Basing your beliefs on a book or books written by men and edited and rewritten by men based on oral traditions told and retold is just hard for me to accept. If there is an omnipotent god and He/She or It cares a whit what I think, It can do better than Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson to tell me what to believe.
Sorry. End of rant.
#41, American Indian myths are generally more interesting than the Hebrew ones anyway.
#40–SL==you are correct my knowledge base is that of a layman. Still, absent agreed upon definition to the contrary isn’t Natural Selection simply “the environment” selecting what combination of “anything” will work or not work for any given purpose? In more complex relationships it might mean what organism can compete for food or reproduction better than some other organism, but at the start of things would it not be “by analogy” if nothing else that carbon was naturally selected over silicon to be the basis of life on earth?
No one posting here is stupid. (sic!). Perhaps I’m just sloppy in saying stupid rather than not using the intellect in positive manner==positive in seeing the point being made rather than to tear it down and not seeing the point. Disagreement can come later, not seeing it at all is stupid of a sort whether it is more attitudinally based or not==still stupid.
There was no “deciding” going on but rather the random chance of chemical bonding being increased by concentration brought by various processes.
Whoops, caught short==gotta go.
Does it really matter if the big bang was divine inspiration or not? IMHO its a meaningless question.
To paraphrase the Buddha “When you have an arrow speeding toward you with no hope of avoiding it, do you stop and consider who made the arrow?”
“oh shit, we need some organelles too”?
I hear the same thing all the time from my kids.
#40, SL,
A very well thought out post.
#45, Mr. Baggins,
And I bet you tell them to try them. They’ve never eaten them before and they’re good for you and taste great and are less filling and …
I have a few points to make.
First the idea of “Teaching both sides and letting the children decide” is completely asinine. You might as well say, “Teach them the holocaust happened and it didn’t happen and let them decide”, or “F = ma and F = 2ma and let them decide”. My point being: if the choice is whether to teach something that supported and provable verses something that is based purely in wishful thinking; there is no choice.
Second. I have no problem teaching the idea of creation, but only as a religious studies course; not as science. Creationism (intelligent design), has zero supporting evidence. At least no evidence that holds up to any kind of scrutiny. Therefore is NOT science. Advocates of creationism know this, that’s why the tactic of introducing it in schools has changed over the past few years. They are no longer trying to support it. Rather, they are trying to discredit evolution as evidenced in this book and many others that have been cropping up recently.
I have a serious problem with the movement to discredit evolution because the only way to do so is to discredit all science since biological evolution is based in scientific research. Their ultimate goal seems to be to create a generation of people who do not understand or trust science. I don’t think I’m over-reacting when I say that if this goal is realized it would be the beginning of the second Dark Age.
Sea Lawyer, I get where you’re coming from and a number of hypothesis have been proposed for Abiogenesis (I think I spelled that right) to explain potential avenues of evolution. Hypothesis lead to research, and this research is difficult and fascinating.
What I don’t get is why there needs to be a creator. Are there unanswered questions? You betcha. The universe including biology is difficult to understand. Yup. But the argument always seems to fall back to: it is very complex, therefore there must a creator.
I personally find this a very unappealing conclusion. The spirit of the whole argument is that if it’s difficult to understand then it must be a creator’s work, so it’s not worth poking our nose into it.
Did you just call evolution science? I expected more from thinking people as yourself…
Science is defined by Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary as “knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.”
The understanding we have of the process of Biological Evolution most certainly falls under that category. I challenge anyone here to present any research on creationism or intelligent design that fits even this very broad definition.
The plain and simple truth is that it doesn’t exist. Therefore whereas the (scientific) theory of evolution is well supported by a virtual mountain of carefully conducted studies and analysis, the belief in creationism is at best a strongly held opinion.
Joseph Campbell – all is myth.
I’d like to write a similar book, but exploring the “theory” of gravity instead which, frankly, I am not sure I even believe. After all, it is just a “theory”, and I bet no one can prove that it isn’t God’s hand that is keeping everything down on the ground … I mean, how do we even know the earth is spinning … maybe the earth is staying still and God is spinning everything around it?
I believe Dawkins calls himselves a neo darwinist.
The selfish gene theory (read the book not the title!) takes Darwins old ideas to another level.
Evolution has evolved.
Old concepts like ‘survival of the fittest’ and being all about the ‘preservation of the species’ are thrown out of the books.
# 52 Neo-Postdarwinst Ben said, “I’d like to write a similar book, but exploring the “theory” of gravity instead which,”
Actually, you’re wrong. It’s called, The Universal Law of Gravitation.
Now, why isn’t it called The Law of Evolution?
Therein you’ll find enlightenment.
Proof that gravity exists: 100%
Proof that evolution exists: 100%
Proof that intelligent design exists: 0%
There’s your enlightenment.
# 55 Olo Baggins of Bywater said, “Proof that evolution exists: 100%”
Umm, no. That’s why it is isn’t called a Law like gravity.
Nice try though. We have a box of Rice-a-Roni for you as a parting gift.
ROFL.
#48, QB, I don’t believe in a “Creator.” But I also have a difficult time with the hows and whys of the formation of functioning cell structures from nothing. Speciation through natural selection is easy to understand, random atoms bonding together to create a “living” cell is hard to wrap the head around. Which is why I posted my comment to begin with.
# 57 Sea Lawyer said, “random atoms bonding together to create a “living” cell is hard to wrap the head around. Which is why I posted my comment to begin with.”
Don’t worry, you’re not alone. There isn’t one scientist on the planet that has proposed an actual theory level proposal on how that exact thing happened.
OMGawd. SL with support by Paddy-Zero. The blind stumbling on the blind both cheerfully offering their ignorance as an argument against well established science. What a hoot. There are many websites/books/articles on various different mechanisms that could bring life out of the constituent elements. The exact method is not known, the general principles are.
I’ll start you two off with a hint–life doesn’t start with “random atoms bonding together to create a “living” cell.”
Thats so moronic, you aren’t worth responding to except to say your ignorance is astounding===go read a few books.
# 59 bobbo said, “The exact method is not known, the general principles are.”
Actually, false. There is nothing published anywhere that describes an answer to what he is talking about. I’ve searched, quried biologists, etc.
Link please, or look like an idiot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
If your response is “thats not what he means” please rethink it.