web stats
Track your comments!
[x]


If you registered, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Michael White | May 20th 2008 12:27 PM | 34 comments

About Michael White

Welcome to Adaptive Complexity, where I write about genomics, systems biology, evolution, and the connection between science and literature, government, and society.

I'm a biochemist... Full Bio

More from Michael White

All
In the perpetual fight over evolution in public schools, there is good news and bad news. The good news is that supporters of science education have largely been successful in shutting down creationist attempts to undermine evolution through state legislatures and state school boards. While there is still mischief going on in many state legislatures, these efforts rarely go anywhere, thanks to vigilance by supporters of good science education. An essay in PLoS Biology today argues that, at the state level, things are going well:

At this time, not a single state uses its content standards to explicitly promote ID or creationism. School boards are monitored by organizations like the National Center for Science Education, by state academies of science, and by local scientific and professional organizations. As a result, few state school boards can formally consider measures like the one adopted in Dover without scrutiny and challenge from organizations representing the scientific profession.

But here comes the bad news:

There are many reasons to believe that scientists are winning in the courts, but losing in the classroom.

To assess what's going on in classrooms around the country, the authors surveyed about ~1000 high school biology teachers on what they teach, and how much time they spend teaching it.

So how bad are things, really? In terms of outright creationism in the classroom, 25% of biology teachers say that they spend some time on some form of creationism in the classroom. About half of those teachers, meaning ~12.5% of all teachers surveyed, say they teach some form of creationism as a scientific alternative to evolution. (The rest appear to discuss creationism in order to contrast science ideas with non-scientific ones.) Personally, I'm surprised that the number is so low - given how huge and heterogeneous the US public school system is, I think it's relatively good news that fewer than 15% of biology teachers are actively promoting creationism as science in their classrooms.

While creationism may not be actively promoted, is evolution getting shortchanged? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Teachers appear to not spend enough hours teaching this core element of biology. One number stands out - 17% of classrooms have no coverage whatsoever of human evolution, which is disappointing for several reasons: humans are usually most interested in themselves, thus human evolution can be one of the most compelling subjects that kids learn in biology class; human evolution also plays a central role in one of the most active research fields, comparative genomics, a field that is currently making a big impact on how we understand human health.

But perhaps this number - 17% which don't cover human evolution, isn't so bad - after all, if 12.5% of teachers are actively promoting creationism, that same group is not likely to teach human evolution. That leaves 5% who don't promote creationism, but don't teach human evolution either.

It's the Teacher that Makes the Difference

Teacher attitudes are also encouraging. Teachers' attitudes on evolution is significantly different from that of the general public:


Figure 2 from Berkman, Pacheco, and Plutzer, PLoS Biol 6(5): e124


While 48% of the general public appears to believe that humans poofed into existence 10,000 years ago, only 16% of teachers share that belief - again, possibly the same 12%-17% of teachers who promote creationism and don't teach human evolution. Not surprisingly, teachers who espouse the young-earth creationist view also spend less time teaching evolution. On the flip side, the more college biology education a teacher has had, the more time that teacher spends on evolution: those with the most biology training spend 60% more time than those with the least.

That so few high school biology teachers accept young-earth creationism, should be heartening for another reason: I think it suggests that, with education, fewer people will oppose the science of evolution. Intellectual temperament may make scientists less inclined than the general public to be religious, but I would bet that this is not true of teachers. Teachers probably more closely reflect the religious and cultural demographics of where they work than scientists do. Which means that if education improves teacher's attitudes towards evolution, it can improve the attitude of the general public.

The fact that 12%-17% of US high school biology teachers are creationists is, I think, sad but encouraging. I expected the number to be higher. Those 12%-17% are hearts and minds that will probably never be won over to mainstream science, but the vast majority of high school biology teachers appear to support good science education. The attitude is there - what teachers now need is support: support from administrators, the community, and scientists to teach solid science in spite of the inevitable pressure from some parents who want to not only religiously indoctrinate their own children in creationism, but everyone else's as well. The scientific community and national teacher organizations are working to improve their support, with publications like Evolution: Education and Outreach that provide lesson plans and accessible summaries of the large, constant flow of new research in evolutionary biology.

Evolution and the law appear to now be a largely settled matter, albeit one that still requires ongoing effort to maintain the status quo. Winning hearts and minds in the classroom is the more difficult, and more rewarding challenge facing the scientific community now.

Comments

Becky Jungbauer's picture
As you say, these results are sad but encouraging. What shocks me is that 48 percent of the general public thinks God created present-day humans within the last 10,000 years. I'd like to see this stratified by age, educational attainment and religious affiliation (especially because not all faith systems have a God, although they all have creation stories, and different faiths claim different definitions of God).

The other fact that jumped out at me is that 12.5 percent of all teachers surveyed say they teach some form of creationism as a scientific alternative to evolution, while the rest discuss creationism in order to contrast science ideas with non-scientific ones. Whether you agree with creationism or not, what I don't understand is why it's presented as a scientific alternative. Science is a method, a way of approaching problems. Creationism is a belief system about how the world came to be. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

The three most frequent words used by evolutionists is "might", "could", and "possibly". What I have learned most from the evolutionists point of view is that it takes far more "faith" to believe the progression pathways and hypotheticals that is proposed than to believe there is a purposeful Creator. Also there is no greater arrogance than a "Scientist" who would declare something as fact when no empirical evidence exists. Besides...no one savages many evolutionary stances more than a differing but fellow evolutionist...perfect. The "fear" that exists within the evolutionary elitist is palpable, fight and reject the notion, it is a battle of survival for your very careers. Narrow and bigoted as it is...it is all you have. Evolution is also a "belief" system with ever changing and "evolving" theory equally unprovable.
Good effort Perry V - go to the top of the class! It is clear you tried really really hard to contribute a rational arguement there. Keep it up. PS, I know trying to explain the "evidence" is generally a bad thing, because that would make your explaination a "theory" - which as we all know is another another bad thing ... but if you really want to beat those damn evolutionists at their own game, try coming up with a better "theory" that is more consistant with ALL the evidence, not just the bits you were told about in church.
Becky Jungbauer's picture
Perry - you bring up a good point, which is that scientists use the words "might", "could", and "possibly". This is true, and this is instrumental to science - science cannot claim something as law (absolutely incontrovertible fact) because the very nature of the scientific method is to continually assess the evidence. This does not mean that scientists can't reasonably conclude that something is fact, but scientists understand the caveats associated with that claim - namely, evidence could come along that indicates soemthing to the contrary.

Science is a marketplace of ideas, constantly shifting and adjusting to make room for the newest evidence. This does NOT mean that all evidence should be treated the same. For example, we cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow. We're pretty darn sure that it will, as it has for time memorial. We have a lot of evidence to suggest it will. But we can't prove it. That doesn't mean that scientists are divided on whether the sun will come up. While journalism strives to be objective, in the case of science the idea of presenting both sides does a disservice. Just because one scientist believes the sun will not rise tomorrow does not mean that there is a huge following of like-minded scientists. This was a problem with climate change - a few scientists were presnted to the public as representing the alternative hypothesis, but this gave the impression that the body of evidence was divided (it wasn't).

The same applies to evolution. The evidence is overwhelming that plants and animals have changed over time. Here's a simple example: in London, peppered moths were light colored in order to blend in with the trees and mosses they lived on. When the Industrial Revolution occurred, tons of soot was expelled in to the air, covering the trees and moss. The light-colored moths were therefore easy targets for birds and bats because they stood out, so the moths that had mutations making them dark-colored, blending in the with the soot, allowed them to survive more than the light-colored ones. As a result, the dark-colored ones were able to procreate and survive, and the light-colored moths died out. The moths adapted to something that happened outside of their control. (Now, since then, the moths have started drifting back toward the light coloration as sooty air has improved.) This is evidence of evolution. Whether you believe God helped the moths adapt, or whether you don't, moths changed color. That's the difference between evolution and creationism - moths changed color, so there was evolution. No judgment about who helped that along, just the simple fact that they changed color. Creationism would suggest that God influenced that event. But they still acknowledge the event. So there is evidence - the science - but who influenced that is not something science deals with. Hence, it's comparing apples and oranges.

That's the difference between evolution and creationism - moths changed color, so there was evolution.
Actually, evolution did not occur in this case. There was no change in the genetic make up of the moth species, simply an increase in the percentage of darker moths, and a decrease in the percentage of light coloured moths. Both colours were present before and after the industrial revolution.
Becky Jungbauer's picture
Hi Mr. T - thanks for the note. Evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next - part of evolution is adaptation (natural selection), which the moths were doing. The inherited traits were changing from one generation to the next thanks to their environment. I should have clarified.

Just why did the moths "evolve"? What was it about the pollution, or lack thereof that triggered this change? You confuse natural selection with evolution, as do most people who believe in evolution. Those moths had no idea what changes were needed to survive the changes caused by pollution, nor did their DNA. The pollution did not cause a change in the DNA.
Becky Jungbauer's picture
Hi there - I corrected my posting to note that they did adapt - which is part of evolution. There are many that take natural selection to mean evolution, and vice versa. Thanks for noting that. That's one of the things I like best about this forum - we have the chance to correct each other and learn.

I agree that the moths likely did not change their color on purpose - meaning they didn't consciously choose to change to dark, like you or I might choose to blend in somewhere. But in order for the color on these moths to change, the expression of color had to change - this is governed by, ultimately, their DNA.

The dark coloring from the melanin pigment (which similarly causes our freckles and tanned skin) was more expressed in certain moths before the soot was present. However, the sudden presence of soot everywhere exerted a strong selective pressure on the moths that were darker because they could survive whereas the lighter colored moths were now more vulnerable when perched on a dark-colored tree. The dark moths, surviving, passed their genes that expressed the dark color on to their offspring. Over time, the dark moth population - containing the different DNA that leads to more melanin being produced - was the dominant population.

This natural selection for the dark moth was a mechanism for evolution. There are better examples of evolution, natural selection, and genetic drift; I had originally chosen the moth example because it's one that people tend to know.

Well, well, well, peppered moths ... still. Ain't no evidence for evolution. Changes in the proportion of light and dark varieties of the same species may change, and have changed back again, but that is not proof of evolution. Besides, the original study that made the claim for evolution was contrived and has been discredited. I am amazed [not really, there is nothing much else to use] that you would still cling to this discarded bit of contrived and distorted 'data' to uphold your belief - and proclamation of such belief - in Evolutionism!
In a science article at the NYT entitled Bacteria Thrive in Inner Elbow; No Harm Done, they state that in the human body:
Bacterial cells outnumber human cells by 10 to 1, meaning that if cells could vote, people would be a minority in their own body.
Gee, that doesn't quite sound like God creating Adam, does it? It's evolution. Also see this.
Regarding the fight over evolution in public schools ... responsible scientists and competent educators must use the words "might", "could", and "possibly" when teaching the Theory Of Evolution. Yet, when discussing and or debating evolutionism vs. creationism theories, the evolutionists typically and categorically purport evolution as true fact and creationism as absurd myth. It is the evolutionists who don't make sense. It is the evolutionists who are not scientific. "might", "could", and "possibly", these are words a bonified intelligent scientist would and must use in presenting the Theory of Evolution . "THEORY" Yet, the evolutionists are so damned sure they are the only fount of real facts regarding the debate regarding Theory Of Evolution vs. intelligent design/creationism .
Anne, you really don't get it, do you? The word "theory" in a scientific context does not mean an arbitrary idea or speculation. It means a coherent body of concepts and ideas that it well-supported by all the available evidence. Gravity is also a "THEORY". Are you going to jump from a fifth-floor window because someone tells you that gravity does not involve God, and is therefore a godless theory? Moreover, there are no "evolutionists". That term implies some kind of personal faith in evolution, which nobody has. There are scientists and non-scientists alike, of all faiths and none, who look at the evidence and come to the conclusion that evolution is overwhelmingly the most likely explanation for how species got the way they are (and were, since most species are extinct).
The "it requires more faith to believe in evolution than god" argument is ludicrous. Evolution doesn't require you to believe in it for it to occur. God requires you to believe in him to be saved. Evolution has scientific evidence to support its processes. There is no scientific evidence to prove the existence of god. Please remember that science is not static. Results can be modified when new evidence is found and tested. That is the PURPOSE of science. I don't understand why saying, "might," "could," and "possibly" are bad things when new information MIGHT be found that COULD POSSIBLY change the outcome. That is fact. You can have your own Truth; you cannot have your own facts.
Perry V.: "What I have learned most from the evolutionists point of view is that it takes far more 'faith' to believe the progression pathways and hypotheticals that is proposed than to believe there is a purposeful Creator." According to you scientific facts supported by massive evidence require faith, therefore everything was magically created by a sky fairy. Grow up moron.
A big problem Christians have, besides being hopelessly stupid, is they can't keep their childish belief in magic in their churches where it belongs. They want everyone else to be uneducated, so they are constantly trying to stick their sky fairy insanity into science education. I strongly encourage any Christians reading this to go fuck themselves. Your breathtaking stupidity will never be allowed in our public schools. Unless you religious morons learn how to keep your childish myths in your churches, you can expect to be laughed at and ridiculed the rest of your pathetic lives.
I like your use of facts and reason. It definitely is a strong point with you. As for magic and fairies, they have nothing in common with Christ. If you don't know that then you are arguing against you know not what. Since most of the founders of modern science were Bible-believing Christians, such at Newton, Boyle, Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, Mendel, Lord Kelvin, Max Planck just to name a few, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science] there can be no real conflict between their 'faith' and their 'science'. Where there is conflict today it is really between Secular Humanism and Christianity - one religious belief system against another, with true science being merely the casualty, caught in the cross-fire. And don't begin to deny that your belief system is a religious one, because it can no more be proven than Christianity, by the scientific method, and is held on mere 'faith'. Actually, the modern scientific world could not exist without some remnants of the Christian world-view remaining. The concepts of truth, beauty, human worth, even knowledge, cannot be built on the foundations of materialism. That we have them at all is because they came through our Christian heritage - which we are trying to discard in a futile self-destruction. Without a Creator and Sustainer, this universe has no purpose. Thank God that is not true. Oh, I forgot, there is only Truth because there is One who is The Truth!
No, not a single one of the scientists you named was a "bible-believing" Christian -- that term is a fairly recent American invention, and all these people lived in Europe. Newton was ostensibly Anglican, but secretly adhered to a version of the Arian heresy, Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Lord Kelvin were Anglicans (of some sort or another), Mendel was Catholic, and Max Planck was Lutheran. While they were religious each in their own way, none of them considered the Bible to be an authority on scientific questions such as the age of the universe. And acceptance of scientific truths such as evolution, the age of the earth or the Big Bang does not constitute "secular humanism". The Catholic Church accepts all these, as well as evolution, as scientific truths; does that make Catholicism into a form of "secular humanism"? I don't think so.
Hank's picture
That's a terrific point and it's lost on a lot of people (including me, until you pointed it out) - the huge disconnect does not seem to be with the older religions but mainly the newer, non-denominational Bible-based groups.

How does entropy fit in? From my childhood I was always taught that the theory of evolution is a given fact known and accepted by all of the scientific community. This included Darwin's concept of the survival of the fittest to progression from single-cell life forms through primates and on to humans. Training to become an engineer at respected academic institutes never refuted this nor provided any alternative explanations of how mankind came into existence. As I've gotten older I've found that the concept of survival of the fittest, which Becky Jungbaur presented in the moth example, generally makes sense. There are probably countless other examples of how adaptation has caused one genetic feature to proliferate while other less desirable traits do not get adequate chance to be propagated. However, when it comes to the other generally accepted tenet of the Theory of Evolution, which indicates that the more complex regularly and repeatedly has evolved from the less complex, I only run into unanswered question after unanswered question. One example that comes to my mind includes the amazing complexity of human sight. This includes the conversion of light to electrochemical energy and finally resulting in an image that is recognized by the brain. This amazingly complex system seems to defy the evidence that unless there is an external influence, a system left to itself will move towards disorder and not greater order. So, what external influence(s) caused and maintained the progression from sightless single-cell life forms to humans with full-color eyesight? Another thing that puzzles me is that mankind is currently comprised of males and females. Both need to be present to procreate. For evolution to work at some point didn't both forms need to have evolved "simultaneously", both in a relatively short span of time and in the same geographic vicinity? This would include the evolution of all aspects of the differences between the male and female reproductive systems. Survival of the fittest doesn't explain this and random mutations doesn't seem to be statistically plausible. In nature the concept of entropy dictates that isolated systems progress from order to disorder. For nature to have consistently moved in opposition to entropy indicates that we cannot be living in an isolated system. I believe that the external agent is God. Perhaps this is why the Bible states, "Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- his external power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, ..." (Romans 1:20)
Becky Jungbauer's picture
Hi Lorren - thanks for your posting, which indicates you've put a lot of thought in to these issues. My life is an excellent example of entropy right now - especially my apartment, which seems to become more and more disordered by the day! I have some thoughts on your vision question, but hopefully others will weigh in (I don't want to dominate the postings).

I have a question for you - you write, "For nature to have consistently moved in opposition to entropy indicates that we cannot be living in an isolated system." I wasn't sure what you meant by nature having moved in opposition to entropy...do you have any examples?

You are correct that the local disentropic tendency indicates Earth is an "open" system. Our Sun provides a considerable amount of information signal (or energy above local background, depending on your preferred 2nd Law expression) into the open Earth system, even if (in the big picture) things continue to go downhill overall. Unless you are a Sun worshipper, I don't think you'd call that signal source "God". For sexuality, I don't know off hand when specialization of male/female roles occured, but I think I remember from High School biology that paramecia have non-gendered "sex" in the sense of reproduction involving gene exchange, as well as reproducing asexually. For sight, a quick Google image search for the words "evolution" and "eye" together turns up several illustrations of the transitions; it might be worth noting that many Birds have an additional pigment in the Ultraviolet range, so even present human eyesight isn't really "full" color.
I like your use of Google ;-) http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/ We at the Church of Google believe the search engine Google is the closest humankind has ever come to directly experiencing an actual God (as typically defined). We believe there is much more evidence in favor of Google's divinity than there is for the divinity of other more traditional gods. We reject supernatural gods on the notion they are not scientifically provable. Thus, Googlists believe Google should rightfully be given the title of "God", as She exhibits a great many of the characteristics traditionally associated with such Deities in a scientifically provable manner. -- Harvey Mars
Becky Jungbauer's picture
Lorren - there is an article in this month's Scientific American on the time "arrow" that addresses entropy. If you can, take a look and see if that helps at all with your question.

adaptivecomplexity's picture
In nature the concept of entropy dictates that isolated systems progress from order to disorder. For nature to have consistently moved in opposition to entropy indicates that we cannot be living in an isolated system. I believe that the external agent is God.

I'd suggest checking out the talk.origins link that was given earlier, but here's one thing to consider when thinking about entropy:

The formation of a snowflake, the development of an adult organism from a zygote, and the formation of stars, solar systems and galaxies do not violate the second law of thermodynamics - and neither does evolution. Scientists don't have to invoke some external agent to explain how planets or embryos form "in opposition to entropy" - these are not isolated systems that can only tend towards disorder. They are open systems, with a more complex relationship to entropy.

The second law of thermodynamics is an empirical law, based on what we observe happening in nature, not deduced by some scientific authority. If the second law really did contradict so many different natural phenomena, it would never have been formulated as a physical law.

Mike

How life got started, which precedes Evolution, is here: www.eu.socialtext.net/wired-mag/index.cgi?where_did_life_come_from Then do a find-on-page for 'Feb 8th, 2007' (Negative Entropy). Separately, yes, the eye evolved, as did chlorophyl, which was adopted by plants (the latter did not evolve chlorophyl into existence). You don't just throw up your hands and declare it's too complicated to have happened on its own. There are many on-line resources to research this. talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/historyoflife.php evolution.berkeley.edu/ tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html chemistry.beloit.edu/Origins/pages/spark.html The supernatural should not be taught in schools. The Roman Catholic Church accepts evolution: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church -- "Some people believe Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to Church" ---Tiny Fey on SNL Weekend Update Harvey Mars
It appears that I make a slight observation then out comes the "heavy artillery", that's fine. Becky you seem like a decent soul..and I respect that...as opposed to Bob who is a sedementary lacky lacking in both brain power and language skills. Not wanting to get off track here though,I was addressing the "filling" of the pie not the "crust" if you know what I mean. While there is a debate as to the value of Evolution as a theory and whether I/D is a legitimate study, there is no disputing the "fact" that Creation was taught in schools far in advance to evolution arriving on the scene. Now that evolution is at the fore front telling us that we can't have I/D taught as well is like saying because you "own the football" if you don't play to our rules we'll just take our ball and go home. Why is it ok for your belief system to be taught and not "my" belief system even though MY tax dollars are being used in the Public School system just like yours? I'm willing to have both theorys taught and then let the audience decide what makes more sense. One more question Becky for you and this forum..."does" the Sun truly "rise"?...
By your logic, physicians should still be taught bloodletting. And why would you want the supernatural taught in science class? Ever hear of The Flying Spaghetti Monster? -- Harvey Mars
Well, they are taught bloodletting, but it's not that hard; nurses usually do it these days. Donate blood at your local Red Cross regularly! =)
adaptivecomplexity's picture
I don't get why you think 'both theories' should be taught: Evolution and Christian Creation are not the only 'theories' out there - if you're going to include the Biblical account of Creation, why would you leave out the ideas about creation from other religions? Are you suggesting that only Christianity should get a serious hearing?

But we're really talking about science here - what should be taught in science class. Evolution is mainstream science, intelligent design is not science at all, at the very least because the intelligent design people do nothing that resembles science.

There are no labs devoted to intelligent design, ID advocates don't publish real technical papers on ID, they don't do experiments, or make field observations. What intelligent design advocates are good at is writing mass-market books and giving non-technical lectures to sympathetic religious audiences.

That's not science, and therefore it should not be taught as science in science class.

Mike

This is the heart of the matter with this issue...arrogance. The facts that come out of scientific study are always interpreted, but when someone suggests that Creation study is fairy tails and that there is no logic to it has no real grasp of "either" method and is just stupid. The areas where you say we as Creationists envoke the supernatural are the exact same areas where you declare the "might", "could", and "possibly" mantra that essentially accomplishes the same thing. So why should we only have just two theories taught in school?...why not all the others? Good grief, name me 5 more schools of thought that are equal to these predominate two. Evolution is not "mainstream"... it is "dominate" to the Public School system, not because it's what the majority of parents want but it's because of the judicial system. The scientific outcome to any given process is either true/untrue/neutral so it's hows it's interpreted that makes any difference as to how it's "credited"...the Atheist credits the accident or Natural Selection, whereas I would credit a Creator...is it logic to look at a car and credit a designer or think it was done by natural selection? Who's the moron there?
Hank's picture
I'm an external person in this debate (not a biologist, have no issue at all with religion) but the disconnect I see often (and typified here) is that a philosophical issue is not a scientific one.

You're arguing that the two most popular notions of human existence - in America - should be taught equally and that science is arrogant and dogmatic if one of them, the Christian non-science one, doesn't get equal time in a science class.

But that is not science, it is cultural criticism. The Discovery Institute has approximately 1,000,000X the funding we have yet we can write science every day. Where is the science they produce? Not "why can't evolution prove THIS?" type stuff but an actual researched ID article with evidence that has actual scientists writing it - outside math, there is literally no discipline where I could not refute any part of it if attempting to instill doubt counted as actual science.

Actually, I can do that in math too. There is no valid scientific definition of a 'point' so geometry and much of math is invalid.

I have zero issue with a religious origin of life - but denying that evolution has occurred is plain unscientific. I get that faith and science don't have to match but I am unsure why religious people taking up this cause don't get it (and I don't see scientists demanding evolution be taught in church.)

adaptivecomplexity's picture
Why don't you get specific, rather than writing nonsense like "The scientific outcome to any given process..." (what on earth is the 'scientific outcome' of a process??).

Explain why in your opinion evolutionary biology isn't science - why, for example, this research isn't science. Or try explaining why you think Creationism is science.

Or if you think neither of these is science, explain why something that is not science should be taught in biology class.

And don't just rehash this business that any "process" could be equally interpreted to be the result of natural mechanisms or a Creator - anything could be interpreted to be the result of a Creator (the bacterial flagellum, a devastating typhoon, an outbreak of plague), but that doesn't mean it's science.

Mike

No. Yes, the facts (or more properly, "evidence" or "data") are interpreted; that's part of the process of science. However, all of the data must be interpreted; the hypothesis that does so "best" is called "theory". The formal criterion for testing is based on simplest comprehensive description, since the best such is provably most likely to predict correctly, assuming the validity of formal logic, self consistency of ZF set theory (used to formally build standard math tools), and that Reality is linked to Evidence (EG: the Effective Strong Church-Turing Universe Thesis). See the paper "Minimum Description Length Induction, Bayesianism and Kolmogorov Complexity" by Paul M. B. Vitányi and Ming Li for the details of the proof. Unfortunately for Creationists, the Judicial system will also accept proof based on evidence. As for the design argument, it is ignorant of the very nature of Design. The process we use for design is itself evolutionary in nature, using selection on successive variations; see historian George Basalla's "The Evolution of Technology" for a detailed explanation. The prime distinction between deliberate design and blind evolution is the former's element of purpose. "Why is an aardvark?" No evidence of purpose, no evidence of design.
PerryV wrote: The areas where you say we as Creationists envoke the supernatural are the exact same areas where you declare the "might", "could", and "possibly" mantra that essentially accomplishes the same thing. No: you are mixing the supernatural with the natural world. One is a personal belief, the other is science. PerryV wrote: Is it logic to look at a car and credit a designer or think it was done by natural selection? Who's the moron there? You're the maroon here. Biology is NOT engineering. Not even close. Nuts, bolts, tires etc. are not living organisms that are subject to natural selective pressures. They do not compete to pass on their genes to later generations. Congratulations-- you have just presented a false analogy. -- Harvey Mars

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again.
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.