Wyz_sub10

I ahven't read it, but will look it up. Nevertheless, I find it almost impossible to link scientific discovery to christianity. For one, the roots of science extend far back before christianity.

Secondly, countries that never embraced (or had even heard of) christianity were prime movers in science and discovery (Persian, China, Korea, etc.).

Thirdly, christianity did much to stiffle scientific growth at a time when the scientific method was starting to mature.

I'm familiar both with the gospels and the history of Jesus's time. I cannot see any connection between anything therein and the development of science. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that Jaki would have to do a lot of dot-connecting.

Wyz_sub10

What about Darwinism seems incompatible with your understanding of evolution? I think most scientists today aren't "Darwinian" in the sense that the body of knowledge is so much deeper and broader than it was during Darwin's time, that no one looks at his conclusions as final (and many of them no longer applicable).

Also, what contributions to this thread have been "so berift of understanding of the nature of science and biology"? Just curious.

Motorcycle Mama

I've always had trouble with the Truth. Is evolution the Truth? I've read opinions from both sides in these exchanges and would declare "a pox on both their houses." It is a responsibility of a biology teacher to introduce students to the richness of the subject. That can be easily done through comparative biology, including systematics. If someone then wishes to say that the findings of comparative biology are a strong argument for descent with modification, then so be it. Or if someone wishes to say the findings of comparative biology simply refer to what God created, then also so be it. But with a background of comparative biology you can do all of modern biology, cure disease, grow better crops, etc. You don't need evolution.

The exchanges are not what I'd expect among a bunch of bikers outside a bar. I've always felt one should never say anything on a forum you wouldn't say to a biker to his, or her, face. That sure doesn't apply to some of the things I've read here.
Motorcycle Mama

PS Some of you who have beel whaling away on sciteach about his labelling evolution (which is what he intended) only a theory should read Carl Hempel's "Introduction to the philosophy of science (I think that's the title)." Some of the contributors to these discussions are badly confused on the relationship between hypotheses and theories.

Clutch

Mo-Ma,

What, in particular, did you have in mind as revealing "misguided" understandings of evolutionary theory? This thread has not had very many posts even purporting to be about the topic, focussing mostly on the ethics, professionalism and law regarding the presentation of creationism in a classroom. If you feel moved to decry someone's understanding of evolution, perhaps you could be moved to actually argue your case against particular posters and their actual words.

I would be genuinely interested in seeing what particular case you would build. But general attacks on unnamed posters for unspecific failings connote the sandbox as much as anything I've read lately.

Albion

Sure, as long as they don't try and pass it off as science.

MOJO-JOJO

Have you read what scigirl posted earlier, not to mention some of the links that I and others have posted here? Many of your questions and assertions have already been addressed.

Cheers!

Edited for type-os

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: MOJO-JOJO ]</p>

Dr Rick

It is the responsibility of a biology teacher to teach the science of biology. Evolution is part of biology; ID and creation are not.

<strong> Any teaching of biology without evolution would be incomplete. What is the point of simply describing the similarities amongst the species without explaining why they exist?

<strong> Such unverifiable, unsubstantiated and wholly unscientific assertions have no place in a science class.

<strong> Evolution is absolutely necessary to understand not only biology but also anthropology, microbiology, paleontology, genetics, and biochemistry. There is no rational reason to teach politically and religiously motivated superstitious nonsense in a science class.

<strong> This thread is not about the differences between hypothesises and theories.

Rick

Ergaster

Hm...I'm confused...I would have thought--in fact, I continue to think--that in order to adequately teach science, yes indeed, one must understand it. That would include a basic familiarity with what "theory" in science actually means.

Do you disagree with this last proposition? Do you believe "Evolution is ONLY a theory" is a valid statement? Why or why not?

Perhaps you could elaborate on the actual, specific misunderstandings you have seen here. Perhaps you could comment on why sciteach's careful avoidance of the actual scientific points that people have raised makes his posts preferable. Perhaps I have misunderstood you.

Ergaster

heh heh ... yer right.

Motorcycle Mama

I don't know how to insert comments within quotes so will respond to these two questions sepatately.
As a non-Darwinian I do not accept natural selection as being anything more than a mechanism of minor adjustment to the environment. The driving force of evolution is the second law of thermodynamics as expanded to include information. Or, evolution is another case of the increasing entropy in the universe. Before anyone takes exception to that it is an opinion based on reading The Origin of Species, Lamarck's Zoological Philosophy, Entropy as Evolution by Brooks and Wiley, Information theory, language and life by J. Campbell, Did Darwin get it right, the Catholic response to evolution by G. Johnston, From being to becoming by I. Prigogine, G. Himmelfarb's biograph of Darwin (title forgotten) and about 5 other biographies of Darwin. Oh yes, Rosenberg's The structure of biological science. The list could be expanded.


So berift of the understanding of the nature of science and biology. Maybe a bit strong but if one wished to get an idea of the relationship among observation, evidence and interpretation it would nto be found in these comments. All too often I see interpretation, I include evolution here, presented as fact, in my lexicon the equivalent of observation. There is a lot of comment about theory but no one defines what they mean by a theory. With respect to biology, it is a science that is rich in data but poor in theory. So one body of data, say that which relates to systematics, could have been used in the 17th or 18th century to display the works of God was then used in the middle of the 19th century to demostrate the results of evolution.