echidna

DK, is your criticism of the science behind evolution related to a leaning towards either Creationism or Intelligent Design as alternatives ?

Valentine Pontifex

This might be a good place to elaborate. :-)

echidna

Look, only speaking on scientific agnosticism, as a layperson I don’t think that the concept is clearly enough communicated to the Great Unwashed (the general public that is).

I mean really, if it weren’t for the Creationists I don’t think science would need to be so dogmatic at times. And if children didn’t need teaching by authority so much, maybe our education system wouldn’t need to be so dogmatic at times. And if our media weren’t so driven by ratings maybe they’d more often include the fine print “of course it’s only a theory so far”.

Without idiots, children, and the fear of uncertainty, wise people might be able to exist with far more scientific agnosticism than at present. To me the differences which exist within society actually end up polarising science from non-science. I don’t see the science and education as lily-white unfortunately.

Yes I think science and education of secular concepts can take on the role of doctrine at times. Not right or wrong, just the way things are.

As one example, personally I’ve always been intrigued by quantum mechanics & I recall discussing the Uncertainty Principle with an Engineering friend. 4 years of tertiary study & he’d never heard of it (I suspect that’s not just an Australian failure). Simple matter, the UP is not required for Mechanical Engineering, but he had been taught Conservation of Energy as Gospel. He would not be convinced and ultimately I backed off when the conversation became heated.

Education is not an easy task and as such is not perfect. At times it does take on a semblance to doctrine.

Chimp DNA now only 95% similar to human. Look, the evidence itself does the evolutionary argument no harm whatsoever. What does the harm, is the dogmatism with which the 98% was used with such certainty & the loss of credibility which the evolutionist side suffers (albeit tiny).

OK, I’m not keen on adding “to the best of our knowledge” or “within a 94% confidence interval” to every damn statement made, but to me there is a legitimate argument that technically this should be done to maintain scientific honesty.

Of course if one is promoting Creationism or ID, well that’s entirely different.

Lizard

I agree, Echidna. The creationists have created a polarized situation where none really should exist. Creationists complain that scientists are defensive and protective of "their" worldview. Well, wouldn't you, if a bunch of people who were basically ignorant of your entire field of study were constantly accusing you of lying, being an atheist, perpetuating an elitist worldview, etc., etc., etc.?

Back to the education issue, vis-a-vis two models or one model (evolution):

The main point in regard to state science standards (or local school board directives, for that matter) is that there is currently nothing preventing teachers from talking *about* creationism, whether YEC or OEC or ID. What is prohibited is teaching creationism *as science* in public school science classes.

The point of creationists trying to get "alternative theories" into state science standards is to avoid possible lawsuits and give teachers free rein to teach YEC, OEC and ID (heck, Raelianism, too, though I doubt that would please the supporters of inclusive standards) in science class, *as science.* The supplementary text, "Of Pandas and People," by Dean Kenyon, could then be purchased with taxpayers' funds and used in biology classes, Dr. Dino's tape sets could be used in general science, etc., etc.

There is NO (repeat) NO reason to include "alternate theories" in science standards, because teachers are free to discuss alternate theories now -- just not *as science* -- because there is no "alternative theory" which is supported by solid evidence, except evolutionary theory.

Doubting Didymus

I am having a great deal of trouble trying to work out what dk is actually proposing. Are you campaigning to have creationism in schools? ID in schools? or just have evolution out of schools?

Seriously, what is your point? what are you trying to say? what is your conclusion?

I assume that you deny that the evidence does not support evolution. Perhaps you would like to discuss that, as I am also sure you agree that only theories that are well supported should be taught?

And quite frankly I am sick to death of these discussions about what practical benifit evolution has.

It. Doesn't. Matter.

If the theory is true, then we are looking at no less than the meaning of life. Evolution describes where we came from. Evolution is also our destiny, the future of all living things. Quite frankly, I don't give a stuff what the practical applied benifits are, its the only theory of origins that is even close to likely to be accurate, which is something all humans, regardless of creed, care about.

So, seeing as we already have a couple of 'utility of evolution' threads going at the moment, why don't we discuss the actual evidence, and work out the true origin of our kind? That doesn't tempt you at all?

Camaban

With the argument that it has no practical benefit (as if that has anything to do with its accuracy) do you get the feeling that those that spout it are simply spouting it to try and stop support for continuing to look into it? (their God of the Gaps is getting smaller with each new discovery)

Doubting Didymus

I just don't get it. Even if evolution had no practical benifet, so what? are we to get rid of everything that does not give us shiny new technologies? should we abolish gourmet-'ists', because it is more practical to have everyone eat nothing but vital nutrients in a mush? Abolish singing and dancing?

People might say 'but all those things give humans enjoyment'. Well, I for one am thoroughly enjoying studying evolution. Case closed.

dk

Yeh, so any fossil that features a backbone, eyes, digestive tract etc... are transitional. You certainly solved that problem.

Camaban

A little thought would have led you to realise that what was meant there was features that are more or less exclusive to those major groups. (IE, Wings, Gills, feathers, etc etc etc)

Technicalities might win a case in court, but somewhere like here, someone who relies on technicalities is just seen as stretching.

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Camaban ]</p>

dk

That’s not necessarily an either/or question. Absent solid evidence all possible theories should be considered equally probable. Positive evidence in the case of evolution requires a mechanism to turn a cow into a sea cows. I remain open to design or happenstance absent positive proof. I like evolution but find the social sciences unreliable. I maintain that evolution’s job is to ask questions and document convergence(& divergence ) between the disciplines of science. Unfortunately, in my opinion, evolution and the social sciences have increasingly become a source of doctrine, handmaidens to political processes so to speak. I like the idea of Universities as islands of free thought apart from the pressures that cook the greater society, from which the greater society can pick solutions. Absent autonomy science lacks objectivity.