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.
#61 Please at least READ what you post:
“As of 2009, no one has yet synthesized a “protocell” using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called “bottom-up-approach”). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics.”
This is what we are talking about. Lack of specifics.
Now, go play with your Barney dolls.
#23 – teach,
I don’t see why they can’t just teach both and let the kids decide which to believe…
You should not teach because you have not learned. You have failed to learn the meaning of the word science. When you understand the meaning of the word, it will be abundantly clear why religion is different, the two are not equal, and religion should not be taught in science class.
Now, if you want to teach evolution in churches, temples, and mosques, I’d be willing to consider that.
Ignore the troll. He argues one thing and then his argument shifts. He’s never wrong. He lives to ‘prove’ he’s smarter than everyone you. Which is very funny, but tiring.
bobbo & Fusion,
There are other hypotheses of the first life as well. Some are kind of cool. I like the hot vents too bobbo. I’m not a big fan of the panspermia hypothesis as it merely pushes the question to the universe rather than earth. However, if the evidence shows that to be the case, then we’re going to have a hell of a time trying to find out how life started.
I’ll be curious to see whether there’s life on Europa or Triton. If so, the next question will be whether it is DNA based.
I actually also like the clay hypothesis, one of the ones that gets less press and has low odds of being correct. It posits that crystals in clay organize the molecules and may even provide a replication mechanism that is non-life based. Once replication exists, natural selection can work its wonders.
Whatever the answer though, one guarantee is that it will not be found by religion. It will be found by people asking questions and using the scientific method to confirm or deny hypotheses. Religion has given us absolutely nothing in the way of scientific answers to any question ever asked.
Some claim that it gives comfort; some claim morals; no one with even a hundredth of a brain would claim that religion gave us automobiles, airplanes, computers, or moon rockets. Nor has religion given us any usable theories to explain the universe, especially ones that can help with actual calculations, such as relativity or quantum mechanics.
Evolution on the other hand has given us the foundation for all of modern medicine and biology.
Imagine trying to test every new medicine first on human beings because rats and monkeys aren’t related to us, so cannot be used.
Imagine trying to prevent influenza epidemics without knowledge that influenza viruses evolve very quickly, thus requiring new flu vaccines every year.
Imagine trying to understand the occurrence of the sickle cell anemia gene without understanding the selective force applied by malaria in tropical regions.
I’m still waiting for someone to provide supported evidence for creationism. Without that all other conversations are pointless. If your argument against evolution is that you feel there are un-resolvable gaps in the data, then show us the data that supports creationism.
Oh, by the way, an un-researched, non-reviewed opinion paper from a bible college doesn’t really count as scientific data. I mean actual facts.
#44 – Hugh Ripper,
Does it really matter if the big bang was divine inspiration or not? IMHO its a meaningless question.
Yes. It matters. Here’s why. Science is always trying to answer the next question. Positing intellect in order to explain our universe would create an enormous question in the form of ‘from where did said intellect come?’
Unless you are proposing that science begin to investigate the origins of the creator (not with my tax dollar, I hope), then yes, it metters whether we ask the question.
Science does not posit the supernatural to explain things. The foundation of science is that we can learn the explanation through the scientific method. The supernatural presupposes this not to be the case. Just throw up your hands, read your bible, and god will explain it all. Unfortunately, god has explained absofuckinglutely nothing in any testable way. Science, by contrast has not answered every question, but has indeed answered a great many, and the results are testable and verifiable.
#52 – Ben,
Give credit where credit is due. You make an excellent point, as did The Onion when they made it with far better humor.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
#54 – Paddy-trOll,
Now, why isn’t it called The Law of Evolution?
Therein you’ll find enlightenment.
Actually, a little bit of googling on your part would reveal that science has not used the term Law for anything since around the time of Newton.
The answer is a reduction in arrogance, not a reduction in the level of proof required.
In fact, if you weren’t such a dunce, you might have noticed that the Universal Law of Gravitation was shown to be a special case of the more general theory, General Relativity. In a great many cases, The Universal Law of Gravitation gives incorrect answers while the Theory of General Relativity provides correct ones.
http://tinyurl.com/ahu2lk
I see you still haven’t learned much about science and technology. Have you figured out yet why the error bars are shrinking around the estimate for the age of the universe and why it is unlikely to be raised by 2 orders of magnitude?
#66 Smoking Man,
I’m still waiting for someone to provide supported evidence for creationism.
That’s easy. Go to the nearest Christian Science Reading Room, ask them to direct you to the Christian Science Laboratory where they do their research. Tell them you want to go there to be an independent observer of their scientific methods. I’m sure you’ll find the results enlightening … or at least humorous.
# 69 Misanthropic Scott said, “Actually, a little bit of googling on your part would reveal that science has not used the term Law for anything since around the time of Newton.”
Actually, a little formal education would reveal the name: Joule.
Let me know when you figure out what I’m referring to…
Scott,
More relevant and succinct posts.
#71–Paddy-Zero: “Guess what I’m thinking of?” hahahahahah!
#72–Fusion==that could be read in a positive or negative way. I also commend Scott for his excellent, refreshing, and linked input and want more of his relevant and succinct postings.
You might look to Scott as a role model and make your own posting a bit shorter and not drone on about the obvious?
That would be a help—-thanks.
# 73 bobbo said, “Guess what I’m thinking of”
Having to “guess” about the name I posted only applies to those who didn’t finish 5th grade. All others know the name and how it relates to Scott’s false statement…
#73, You accuse Fusion of droning on? lol.
#75–SL–still pissed huh? Yes droning arising from Fusions criticism of Scotts always excellent input. Can’t stand aside when that type of bullying is taking place. Did you read #33? I know he was talking to Paddy-Zero there. More than about 8 words is overkill and droning.
For myself, I’m certainly much more repetitive than droning. Its why I’m becoming more extreme in my presentations. When that gets tired, I’ll change my nick and post as a scumbag libertarian because the occasional support for free speech will be a relief from the body of crap they spread.
#76, why do you think I would be pissed? You’re obviously the angry one here.
#77–SL==enough of personality postings. On to scrimmaging without protective equipment.
Misanthropic Scott Give credit where credit is due. You make an excellent point, as did The Onion when they made it with far better humor.
My hats off to the Onion’s Supririor wit! In fact my hats off to the Onion in general, a truly funny publication! So funny indeed you’d hardly think it was American … 😛
#71 – Paddy-trOll,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
And yet, note that both Einstein;’s and Newton’s theories are both on this page, which is rather amusing since the former expressly contradicts the latter in a great many cases.
So, a law can be disproved. A theory can be disproved. Neither is cast in stone. Neither is necessarily more valid than the other.
Also note that at least on the wikipedia page, all laws are laws of physics. There are no laws of any other science. This would make it hard to talk about any biological laws, wouldn’t it?
bobbo & Fusion,
Thanks for the compliments.
bobbo,
You make me sound positively succinct. Have you read my posts? with all due humility, I thought I was guilty of some of the longest posts on the site. (scott defaults to -v for those who speak unix shell. In fact, scott has no -q option.) I’m glad you think my posts are short, but suspect you’re alone in that belief.
#80 Stick to where I disproved your lie:
Scott: “Actually, a little bit of googling on your part would reveal that science has not used the term Law for anything since around the time of Newton.”
When was Joules alive? What century? What Laws did he codify? Is that law part of “science”? How long after Newton did he live?
Enlightenment comes one step at a time…
#79 – Neo-Postdarwinst,
My hats off to the Onion’s Supririor wit! In fact my hats off to the Onion in general, a truly funny publication! So funny indeed you’d hardly think it was American
And so often true that it’s hard to tell it’s not news. It’s why I’ve been reading them almost religiously for 13 years now.
Love to see a book forced on the schools going the other way
Explore Abraham, every thing Abraham spawned is going down as fantasy.
Lets enjoy Neo-Thelism and Weaknesses and Weakernesses
can science find ANY evidence of divinity?
can science find ANY evidence of space aliens on earth?
can science find ANY evidence of ghosts?
Bob Dobbs and the Flying Spaghetti Monster meet in Thunder Dome. ‘winner take all’
Admit it god fearing folks your personal leap of faith is all that you’ve got don’t push your imaginary friends on the rest of us. Just see us in hell if you turn out to be right.
Fill your own kids minds with this tripe at home, our kids want to be ready to compete globally.
# 84 Pink Unicorn said, “can science find ANY evidence of space aliens on earth?”
I think if you dig into Air Force classified files you might find the answer to that question…
#85 – Paddy-trOll,
And that answer would be a resounding no.
The closest we’ve found to aliens were possible fossilized bacteria on meteors from Antarctica. And, even those were indefinite.
So far, luckily, the silence from space has been deafening. Why luckily? Well, we don’t have a statistical universe to study, just this one planet with life as we know it. But, consider what has happened whenever a more technically advanced society has come in contact with a less technically advanced society. Then imagine that aliens can fly here and we can’t fly there, which makes them the more technically advanced society. So, were we to come in contact with real movie style aliens, we would likely fare very badly.
http://tinyurl.com/jgn9r
# 86 Misanthropic Scott said, “And that answer would be a resounding no.”
Cool. When did you get access to those files?
Patty are you saying you have access to these files or do you have a leap of faith in “Air Force classified files” alluded on some TV show or book?
I’d want matter(a being) to be studied or questioned.
All this divinity, space aliens, ghosts ect. this all makes for great fiction,
but keep it out of our science and biology classes.
# 88 Pink Unicorn said, “Patty are you saying you have access to these files”
All I’m going to say is what I said.
#87 – Paddy-trOll,
Cool. When did you get access to those files?
Same time you did my troll. Same time you did.
Isn’t interesting that the same wackos who believe everything on the X-Files are the same idiots who believe that we never landed on the moon. Do you fall into that category as well?
# 90 Misanthropic Scott said, “Same time you did. ”
I never said I did. It is interesting to see how “scientifically” you think.
Deciding what reports say without reading them…
Interesting indeed…