[_ Old Earth _] Evolution taught in High School - Violation of Rights?

[Ignatz]

There are laws on the book which require the two idea be given equal time in classrooms yet across many American classrooms this is NOT the case. I know, I only graduated from High school five years ago. To say creationism isn't science ignores the TRUTH that there is a field in science known as the Intellegent Design community that promotes Creationism.

The trial in Dover a few years back showed that it is unconstitutional to teach ID in public school classrooms in the United States because it was shown to be creationism in disguise. Not science. Simply because proponents of ID have tried and failed to use a carefully orchestrated political campaign, court orders and litigation to get their views taught in a public school classroom does not therefore mean ID is scientific. As a scientific theory, it is completely without content. It postulates nothing, it has no predictive value, and it isn’t falsifiable. What makes the theory of evolution falsifiable is its commitment to explain processes of evolution. Debunk one process, and evolutionists are forced to propose and test another. What makes ID infinite and unfalsifiable is its refusal to explain intelligent design. You send your kids to biology class to learn by what processes living things evolve. ID doesn't even try to answer that question. Moreover, it has not run the gauntlet that evolution, relativity, and other established theories have before being presented as reliable science to high school students. As an account of the origin and history of life, ID doesn’t have any meat to it. It doesn’t provide any details that scientists might confirm or refute through future experimentation. And most crucially of all, it doesn’t explain anything or predict anything, a key requirement for successful scientific theories. As many scientific critics have noted, “’An unknown intelligent designer did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason’ is not a model.“
--

I'd think the the DNA structure of a given species would be resiliant enough to fend off any given mutation.

--
It isn’t. We see mutations all the time. Are you suggesting that mutations don’t exist? Mutations are what makes any given population of species robust and able to withstand changes in their environment. If living things couldn’t mutate, they would go extinct every time their environment changed. mutations exist. If they are beneficial, the organism will stand a statistical advantage over other members of the group without the mutation. (For example, a mutation that enables the organism to exploit a new food source). As it happens, most mutations don’t have any effect at all.
----

AS for Micro VS Macro. There are NO historically reliable cases of macro evolution. Once we see it, then perhaps I'll except it. However, seeing as how Thousands upon thousands of generations of humans or similar have gone by without being able to so much draw one pictograph of the evolutionary process, i'll keep putting my money on the FACT that there is no such thing as macro evolution. Micro-evolution to me is just a scientific synonym for adaptation

---
A lot of people make this argument. Micro/Macro evolution are exactly the same thing, operating on the same principle over vastly different time scales. Say you have a small bowl of black paint, and you add a tiny drop of white paint to it. It will almost imperceptibly lighten the black paint, and many people would argue that they cannot tell the difference. Let’s call this the First Generation. Now, add another drop of white paint to the black. This is the second generation, and so on. continue doing this for 1000 “generationsâ€Â, and what color do you suppose the paint will be? even though the original black paint was only barely changed with each generation, barely different from the generation that came before it, we now have a totally different color; many successive small changes, (Micro-evolution) have resulted in a big change (Macro-evolution).
----

Again this ignores the entire ID movement within science. as long as there is a school that promotes ID it should be taught. We still teach philosophies of the stoics and skeptics today even though there are very little remants to be found, ID should not be treated any diffently. However, it is...No bias

-----
There is no ID movement “within†science/biology, only among creationists who don’t understand the scientific method, and don’t understand why even a court order in their favor would not make ID a “scientific†theory. Incidentally, it took 60 years before the Theory of Evolution was allowed to be taught in public schools, and even then, it was because there was such a mountain of evidence that it was deemed irresponsible to leave it’s study out of a public school education. As for ancient philosophies, they are not science either, which is why we don’t expect them to be taught in a biology class. I’d be perfectly happy to let ID be taught in an elective philosophy course, If ID had a philosophy. as it now stands, ID simply consists if holes in current evolutionary theory, which evolutionists already point out themselves, incidentally. that’s where the work is, answering the questions we don’t already have answers for. Essentially, ID proponents mine the scientific literature, trying to find places where they think they can plausibly charge that evolutionary theory has failed (the Cambrian explosion, for example). Never mind the stunning successes of the theory of evolution (which explains, among myriad other curiosities, why islands feature organisms related to but distinct from nearby mainland populations, or why closely related species have more DNA in common with one another than they do with more distant relatives). And never mind that scientists themselves are currently at work on the outstanding problems and making progress on them. Wherever a gap is seen in the current evolutionary account, ID theorists swoop in and claim, “God must have done it.“ This approach, however, has a devastating drawback. Every time evolutionary theory fills another “gap,†IDists have to retreat further and admit that they were wrong to invoke an unknowable, untestable supernatural explanation to explain that particular wrinkle of life’s history.
Nevertheless, the “God of the gaps†approach can seem rhetorically convincing to those who, lacking much grasp of the massive number of mysteries that evolutionary theory has already solved, or the proven track record that it therefore enjoys in the scientific community, are greatly impressed to learn of alleged “holes†in the theory.
 
IDists do not claim to be “against scienceâ€Â. Science abusers never do. Rather, the movement seeks to redefine the very nature of science to serve its objectives.
But just like “creation scientists†of the past, ID hawkers have clear and ever-present religious motivations for denying and attacking evolution. And they have failed the only test that matters: They simply are not doing credible, peer-reviewed science. Instead, they are appropriating scientific-sounding arguments to advance a moral and political agenda, one they hope to force into the public-school system.

That’s where the true threat emerges. ID theorists and other creationists don’t like what the overwhelming body of science has to tell us about where human beings come from. Their recourse? Trying to interfere with the process by which children are supposed to learn about the best scientific (as opposed to religious) answer that we have to this most fundamental of questions. No matter how many conservative Christian scholars Bruce Chapman and the Discovery Institute manage to get on their side, such interference represents the epitome of anti-intellectualism, and is just bad science. -Slate magazine

 

[John]

My last for this thread.

Evolution happens and i do not care if it is taught as long as the true aspect of evolution is taught what i mean is today all we see is variations in a species. Darwins tree of life has never been observed anywhere on this planet. (Microbe to everything else) Instead all we see instead of a tree is a field with blades of grass branching form the steams i.e. variations. I am militantly against teaching that man shares a common ancestor with apes, whales evolved from cows, and dinos turned into birds, its stupid and its not true no matter which way you spin it, the evidence is all circumstantial and subject to interpretation.

Adaptation is a wonderful thing that is hardwired into our beings, but no amount of adaptation will change a cow into a whale or what ever other crazy ideal evolutionists have.

Teaching this to young impressionable children as fact is disgusting.

 

[smos]

Adaptation is a wonderful thing that is hardwired into our beings, but no amount of adaptation will change a cow into a whale or what ever other crazy ideal evolutionists have.

Argument from personal incredulity?

Just another quick note: if you take adaptation to be true, then you also take (macro)evolution to be true by virtue of it being merely a continuation of adaptation/micro-evolution. This has been explained before, and Ignatz also gave a nice paint analogy. The two concepts are the same, just on vastly different time scales.

 

[John]

Macro evolution is micro over time e.i cow to whale. When we say Macro does not happen we mean stuff like that, because, it does not happen, lol

 

[smos]

Macro evolution is micro over time e.i cow to whale. When we say Macro does not happen we mean stuff like that, because, it does not happen, lol

Do you mean to say that you don't believe that macro-evolution happens because cows don't give birth to whales?

If your problem with macro-evolution is that you think it says that at some point, an ape gave birth to a human, or they changed into humans in a few generations, or even in a few hundred or thousand generations, then you have a grave misunderstanding of the large time scale on which evolution acts. Millions of years is more than enough time for small changes/adaptations to add up to large differences and speciation. (i.e. it does indeed happen :yes ).

 

[John]

No. like i said over and over, the evidence we unearth is circumstantial and is subject to interpretation. There is no way to know that X evolved into Y, the whole Lucy to human list of links has been raped, there is no truth there. (or any "transitional" type fossil)

 

[smos]

No. like i said over and over, the evidence we unearth is circumstantial and is subject to interpretation. There is no way to know that X evolved into Y, the whole Lucy to human list of links has been raped, there is no truth there. (or any "transitional" type fossil)

So the hundreds and hundreds of new research articles every month, written by scientists all around the globe, simultaneously and independently come to exactly the same conclusions about the thousands of independent cases of research and observation of new facts and evidence by shear coincidence? *

The evidence for evolution is highly unambiguous and unequivocally supports the theory. It bears repeating that science is self-correcting: any evidence that goes against the theory actually changes it. That's simply the way science works. Only unambiguous evidence -- that which can be examined to come to a specific conclusion (whether the conclusion favors a current theory or goes against it) -- can even be considered in the context of a scientific theory. For this reason, your claim that "the evidence we unearth is circumstantial and is subject to interpretation" is false, in that what might be considered circumstantial evidence in a courtroom is many orders of magnitude more ambiguous than what may passingly be referred to as 'circumstantial' by a biologist speaking to a general audience.

The current theory of evolution is based only on unambiguous evidence that has been collected, and has been refined by that unambiguous evidence. The reason the ToE is so robust is because it's based on so much of this unambiguous evidence, and continues to be supported by all the new evidence being added to it.

* I suppose you'd say that Satan is behind that. I think it's suspiciously convenient just to blame Satan for everything that clashes with a worldview, but that's probably better suited for a different thread.

 

[disciple_of_truth]

Hold on, hold on. Let's all just calm down here for a minute. Please remember, this is not a debate between evolution and creation. Nor is it a debate between the two being taught in schools. Furthermore, I never said anything about desiring the teaching of Creation in public high schools.

Now, the point being..I am a Christian who believes in the literal account of Creation as it is laid out in Genesis. I believe that it is my duty to raise up my children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Evolution, by it's very nature, not only attempts to teach an origin of man that is contrary to what the Bible teaches it also leads students into false understandings in regards to moral standards as it systematically destroys any and all accountability to God. Yes, by its very nature alone evolution does address the existence of God by simply doing away with Him. Don't even try to deny that fact. Wether you believe in Creation or evolution is NOT the point here. I will attempt one more time to clearly define the perimeters of the situation and clearly state the question.

Again, if my children are forced to learn about a theory that is contrary to their Christian beliefs, then is this a violation of their constitutional rights as citizens of the United States of America? Remember the following:

IF:
1. My student child is required by school district policy to successfully attend and pass a biology class that teaches a unit on evolution.
2. And, if my student child fails to do so he/she does not receive graduation credit and therefore cannot graduate from high school.
3. My student child was unable to achieve the credit by any other means due to a lack of funding or classes unavailable.

If all of the above were true, then I would say there may be some argument that there is a violation of rights here based on the fact that my child was either forced to learn evolution or was not provided a free public education (because he/she had to pay to take a correspondence course in science to make up for the lost credit). Because evolution is contrary to my Christian beliefs, is it not by default a religion of itself. I mean, given the fact that there is no solid, substantial, clearly defined evidence and/or proof to support it, isn't it just a belief system itself? Therefore, as a set of beliefs that go against my Christian beliefs, and the state forcing it down our throats, aren't my rights being violated when it becomes a requirement to learn it?

Now, no more debate here on wether evolution or creation is correct. Leave that to the other numerous threads found elsewhere. For this thread we are only to discuss wether or not forcing one to learn about evolution is a violation of rights and why or why not. All you evolutionists can debate yourselves into a frenzy, just don't do it here. Keep this thread to the point.

 

[smos]

[In response to disciple_of_truth's post above]

First, the question of whether evolution is true or false is IMO inseparable from the question of whether it should be taught in school. The reason that the validity of the ToE itself is under debate is that it is wrong to teach something which is not scientifically valid as science in a science class, and the ToE is most definitely valid. (Also, this is the Christianity and Science forum, not the Politics and Government forum). My case that it should be taught relies on the fact that by virtue of it being a scientific theory, it is unequivocally supported by the current evidence, and that removing the teaching of the theory based on your religion is in violation of rights for the following reason: a scientific theory going against a particular religious belief is not grounds for the teaching of the theory to be stricken from public school lessons, which include students of many religious upbringings.

If the ToE were religion-based (any religion, not just Christianity), then it would be a violation of the students' first amendment rights to be taught in school, since there would be students in the public school which would not belong to that particular religion. As evolution is not religion-based, it is a violation to strike it from lessons for religious reasons, as you are suggesting should happen.

Now, the point being..I am a Christian who believes in the literal account of Creation as it is laid out in Genesis. I believe that it is my duty to raise up my children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Evolution, by it's very nature, not only attempts to teach an origin of man that is contrary to what the Bible teaches it also leads students into false understandings in regards to moral standards as it systematically destroys any and all accountability to God. Yes, by its very nature alone evolution does address the existence of God by simply doing away with Him. Don't even try to deny that fact. Wether you believe in Creation or evolution is NOT the point here.

The teaching of evolution in public school in no way prevents you from raising your children in the discipline and instruction of your god. Go ahead and instruct them as you wish, but removing the public school's instruction of evolution for the benefit of a specific belief among many is a detriment to the many others.

I disagree that the teaching of the ToE affects moral standards of students, which are derived from their interactions with their peers and guardians. Knowing the basic mechanism behind evolution doesn't hinder a child's tendency to develop approximately the same moral bearing as his or her parents. Moreover, it's up to the parents to enforce what they feel is the proper conduct and moral compass for their children, and there's nothing inherently (or constitutionally) wrong with taking them to church to be educated to such ends.

It's not that the ToE tries to do away with God, it's that it happens to clash with a particular belief about the origin of humans. The ToE in fact doesn't comment on any supernatural beings because there's no reason to do so: no point along the scientific process requires a mention of any god, by nature of science being natural, and a god being supernatural.

Because evolution is contrary to my Christian beliefs, is it not by default a religion of itself. I mean, given the fact that there is no solid, substantial, clearly defined evidence and/or proof to support it, isn't it just a belief system itself? Therefore, as a set of beliefs that go against my Christian beliefs, and the state forcing it down our throats, aren't my rights being violated when it becomes a requirement to learn it?

You're saying that any position that disagrees with religious beliefs is itself religious? So my belief that the sun isn't swallowed every night by a giant snake (ancient Egyptian? - forgive me for not looking up the specifics) is a religious belief, even though I know that this isn't what happens based on my understanding of basic astronomy?

The ToE is a non-religious theory because it relies only on observable facts within the natural world and does not rely on any doctrine or faith in order to be maintained as true: it's maintained as a current scientific theory by unambiguous evidence continuously being added. As in one of my earlier posts, scientific theories are self-correcting in that each new unambiguous fact discovered is incorporated into the theory to either buttress it or change it so that the fact fits (not the other way around - the facts aren't changed to make the theory fit, which is a common misunderstanding of science). As such, the ToE is based on mountains of solid, substantial, clearly defined evidence that keep getting higher with every new study.

Time for bed!

 

[jwu]

Again, if my children are forced to learn about a theory that is contrary to their Christian beliefs, then is this a violation of their constitutional rights as citizens of the United States of America? Remember the following:

IF:
1. My student child is required by school district policy to successfully attend and pass a biology class that teaches a unit on evolution.
2. And, if my student child fails to do so he/she does not receive graduation credit and therefore cannot graduate from high school.
3. My student child was unable to achieve the credit by any other means due to a lack of funding or classes unavailable.

If all of the above were true, then I would say there may be some argument that there is a violation of rights here based on the fact that my child was either forced to learn evolution or was not provided a free public education (because he/she had to pay to take a correspondence course in science to make up for the lost credit). Because evolution is contrary to my Christian beliefs, is it not by default a religion of itself.

Please address my point that accepting the ToE is not required to pass those tests - the only thing that is required is to know what it is about. Stundents don't have to be Buddhists to learn about Buddhism in some class either, and to be required to pass a test on it, right?
The students are free to reject the ToE for whatever reasons - but learning about it is an entirely different matter.

You say this:

I mean, given the fact that there is no solid, substantial, clearly defined evidence and/or proof to support it, isn't it just a belief system itself?

And then this:

Now, no more debate here on wether evolution or creation is correct. Leave that to the other numerous threads found elsewhere.

It would help to do the latter if you also stop making assertions as the former. If you wish to make such statements, then please to it in a place where you are fine with them being challenged.

 

[smos]

[In response to Blazin Bones's post]

Ignatz already responded to many of the comments on ID and macro- vs. micro-evolution with an informative post, so I'll just add a little bit about the other stuff.

As I've said before, there is no underlying purpose of developing any scientific theory; it just might seem so because of science only relying on non-supernatural evidence which can be observed and tested by anyone. It goes against the fundamentals of science to start with a theory and work the evidence around to fit that theory - theories are sculpted by evidence, not the other way around.

The supporting details around evolution are just as speculative as the theory itself. You claim bones are "millions of years old" yet the science of carbon dating itself has been found flawed. This is because scienctists assume they know how carbon is preserved and dispersed over the course of time.

First, the science of carbon dating is just like any other science - it is not based on assumptions, but very well-defined facts that surround it. If a subject in science is found to be in disagreement with the evidence, then it has to be changed to fit the new evidence. There have been recent claims that some radiometric dating methods are invalid, but these claims have been debunked and uncovered as a scheme to spread falsehoods about the accuracy of radiometric dating (see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD014_1.html and for reference, Radiometric Dating: A Christian perspective). Again, the science of radiometric dating is based on sound facts and observations.

The changes that occur inbetween the transition of parent to child hardly supports evolutionary theory. This can simply be seen in basic genetics. No two person are alike because no to people ahve the exact same development. Not even identical twins. They may have thousands of similarities, but ultimately there are differences.

And those slight differences are due to what? Small mutations. And over many millions of years, small mutations can add-up to large differences.

To call basic reproduction evolutionary is a new low for that theory. This is due to the fact that again science has 0 proof that man came from any sort of primate.

Except for the 96% similarities between human and chimp DNA based on actual gene sequencing, and the myriad other facts that indicate common ancestry.

[...]the fact is that it is taught as the unalienable truth and to question it is both ignorant and unthinkable.

I disagree. The whole idea of scientific progress is to continue to question and test and experiment with what we want to know about. So questioning current science is neither ignorant nor unthinkable, but questioning it using unscientific tools (like simply assuming that since nature is so complex it must have been designed) isn't helpful to progress of knowledge.

 

[John]

Except for the 96% similarities between human and chimp DNA based on actual gene sequencing, and the myriad other facts that indicate common ancestry.

sorry to nic pick but so what.

I fail to see how we are similar to apes. Are you referring to number of chromosomes? If so then that % figure is baloney.

Chickens and dogs have 78, a chimp and tobacco have 48, and alligator and an onion have 32 etc. By God they are identical twins

 

[smos]

Except for the 96% similarities between human and chimp DNA based on actual gene sequencing, and the myriad other facts that indicate common ancestry.

sorry to nic pick but so what.

I fail to see how we are similar to apes. Are you referring to number of chromosomes? If so then that % figure is baloney.

Chickens and dogs have 78, a chimp and tobacco have 48, and alligator and an onion have 32 etc. By God they are identical twins

No, I'm not referring to the number of chromosomes. "DNA sequencing" refers to the determination of the exact order of the 3 billion point sequence of the four nucleotide bases (adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine, lining up in a particular order like ATGCTTCGGCAAGACTCAAAATA......) that make up the DNA of both humans and chimps. It's a little more complicated than counting the chromosomes.

 

[John]

And that is supposed to be evidence that we share a common ancestor? Humans and apes are very different, that 4% difference is a crazy amount of information. A good amount of the "transitions" from ape ancestor to man have been proved false. I wrote a good many threads on those frauds, java man, piltdown man, lucy etc.

 

[smos]

Humans and apes are very different, that 4% difference is a crazy amount of information.

If 4% is a crazy amount of information, isn't 96% that much crazier?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(I'll be back later)

 

[John]

perhaps, but i would not go and say that because of a 96% rate that we share a common ancestor. its ludicrous.

 

[disciple_of_truth]

smos wrote:
My case that it should be taught relies on the fact that by virtue of it being a scientific theory, it is unequivocally supported by the current evidence

What current evidence?

smos wrote:
As evolution is not religion-based, it is a violation to strike it from lessons for religious reasons, as you are suggesting should happen.

At the very heart of evolution we find that it is a religion. Many support this. And, if it is taught as "fact" and it is in conflict with any other religious beliefs and happens to be mandatory then it must be in violation of the first amendment right.

Also, did I say that evolution should be struck from "lessons"? Where did I say that? Can you show me where I said that? I can't remember saying that. I looked back through my posts and I can't find where I said that. Maybe you are confused with what someone else said. No, I would suggest that learning about evolution should be optional as in being incorporated into an elective class. Furthermore, I would suggest it to be taught as an idea but not as fact. It needs to be treated just as it is, pseudo-science. Let's keep real science in the science classroom and all forms of speculation and pseudo-science in a classroom where a student can choose to learn about these things if he/she so chooses.

smos wrote:
but removing the public school's instruction of evolution for the benefit of a specific belief among many is a detriment to the many others.

I disagree that the teaching of the ToE affects moral standards of students, which are derived from their interactions with their peers and guardians. Knowing the basic mechanism behind evolution doesn't hinder a child's tendency to develop approximately the same moral bearing as his or her parents. Moreover, it's up to the parents to enforce what they feel is the proper conduct and moral compass for their children, and there's nothing inherently (or constitutionally) wrong with taking them to church to be educated to such ends.

No, it really wouldn't be a detriment to anyone if evolution was removed from public schools curriculum. I don't see how removing something that holds no weight to begin with can be detrimental to anyone. If nothing truthful is being taught, why keep it in the mix?
I hope that someday you get a chance to understand the moral implications that come from the teaching and promoting of evolution. It's apparent that you do not have a Biblical worldview and therefore, don't see the absolute danger that teaching and believing in evolution can have on our young people.

smos wrote:
It's not that the ToE tries to do away with God

Yes it does. The whole reason evolution was designed, developed, implemented and taught was to do away with God. At it's very core it is atheistic. You need to look into this for yourself and stop trusting what others tell you. Make no mistake, evolution is in direct conflict with a Biblical worldview and makes every attempt to do away with God.

You're saying that any position that disagrees with religious beliefs is itself religious?

Yes.

So my belief that the sun isn't swallowed every night by a giant snake is a religious belief, even though I know that this isn't what happens based on my understanding of basic astronomy?

How can this be your belief if you know this doesn't happen?

The ToE is a non-religious theory because it relies only on observable facts within the natural world and does not rely on any doctrine or faith in order to be maintained as true: it's maintained as a current scientific theory by unambiguous evidence continuously being added. As in one of my earlier posts, scientific theories are self-correcting in that each new unambiguous fact discovered is incorporated into the theory to either buttress it or change it so that the fact fits (not the other way around - the facts aren't changed to make the theory fit, which is a common misunderstanding of science). As such, the ToE is based on mountains of solid, substantial, clearly defined evidence that keep getting higher with every new study.

Really? What facts have you observed? Can you site some of the pieces of "unambiguous evidence" that is continuously being added? Can you outline the mountain of solid, substantial, clearly defined evidence that you say evolution is based on? Can you list anything in support of evolution that hasn't already been refuted by the pros? You come in here and lay out this hugh claim without any citations. Now I say back it up!

 

[disciple_of_truth]

jwu wrote:
Please address my point that accepting the ToE is not required to pass those tests - the only thing that is required is to know what it is about. Stundents don't have to be Buddhists to learn about Buddhism in some class either, and to be required to pass a test on it, right?
The students are free to reject the ToE for whatever reasons - but learning about it is an entirely different matter.

Correct, as far as I know one only has to pass the test in order to receive credit. One does not have to accept evolution as truth. However, that is not the point of my argument.

Furthermore, debating evolution verses creation does not address the question asked. You do not have to conclude one way or the other in order to answer the question. The background scenario and information has been clearly laid out and defined. We know what the laws say. Now, what say you?

 

[smos]

did I say that evolution should be struck from "lessons"? Where did I say that? Can you show me where I said that? I can't remember saying that. I looked back through my posts and I can't find where I said that. Maybe you are confused with what someone else said.

It seems like you're the one who needs to "calm down." :D

I'll respond to what I haven't already covered later.

 

[smos]

perhaps, but i would not go and say that because of a 96% rate that we share a common ancestor. its ludicrous.

I'm not claiming that the ToE and common ancestry is based on this fact alone, I'm saying that this fact supports the theory, and is evidence of common ancestry by confirming what would be expected based on the ToE.