All credit goes to Shanti

[bumblemusprime]

http://ncse.com/news/2011/07/victory-ev ... xas-006802

[DJ_Convoy]

Good. I try to live and let live when it comes to religion, but when you are actively working to keep children ignorant, I'm happy to see some sanity prevail.

[Yaya]

While I can understand why evolution would be taught in biology class, I don't quite agree with these statements:

Dr. Eugenie Scott, NCSE's Executive Director, is celebrating the decision. "These supplements reflect the overwhelming scientific consensus that evolution is the core of modern biology, and is a central and vital concept in any biology class. That these supplements were adopted unanimously reflects a long overdue change in the board. I commend the board for its refusal to politicize science education."

The core of modern biology? Give me a break. Even most scientists themselves label evolution as a theory. When a theory is "the core" of a science instead of proven law, it will invariably lead you to spurious conclusions. To take theory as proven fact is by definition something unscientific.

[Professor Smooth]

Don't start. Gravity is a theory as well.

[Best First]

he doesn't say it's fact - he says its overwhelming consensus.

so you don't really have a point.

[Yaya]

Don't start. Gravity is a theory as well.

Which is backed by the principles of physics and which can be written in the form of a mathematical equation. Gravity is slightly more convincing than evolution on this basis alone. And yet, is it hailed as "The core of physics?" Hardly.

Evolution has only been given such emphasis because of it's battle with Christian theologists.

Incidentally, as a Muslim, I don't deny the existence of evolution, nor can a say with certainty it exists.

In fact, the Quran, depending on interpretation, is in agreement with evolution:
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (The Noble Quran, 21:30)"

[bumblemusprime]

Evolution can be proven in simple observations in cells. A scientific theory is significantly different than a rhetorical theory, which is the equivalent of a scientific hypothesis.

My own religious beliefs allow for evolution as well, Ya, and I don't know if Islam has an equivalent to Jesus's famous "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and God that which is God's," but that is, to me, a way of saying one must respect and honor the many beneficial scientific discoveries in our world without presuming to guess how they fit into the mystery of divinity.

And Emvee's Emvee sense is tingling...

[Yaya]

one must respect and honor the many beneficial scientific discoveries in our world without presuming to guess how they fit into the mystery of divinity.

I guess in some way I agree with this, as I don't pretend to understand how God does things. However I see magnificent scientific discovery and think only of God's greatness.

When I see, for example, the complexities and intricacies of the human brain alone, I respect and honor Him that much more so vs. see them as in some way separate from divinity and worthy in and of themselves of respect and honor. They are but reflections of the divine to me, and in understanding them, we only scratch the surface. In the years to come, we will contradict many of these principles we hold as fact only because we will uncover greater scientific discoveries. This has always been the way of science. If I respect and honor evolution itself, one hundred years from now I may fall into that same class of scientists who determined the world was flat, and respected and honored such belief.

It's just the statement that "evolution is the core of biology" is off the mark. It's an almost fanatical statement. Everything cannot be explained scientifically by evolution. Another scientist could argue that "quantum physics is the core of biology", for everything, all existence, really occurs at the quantum level. We are all but molecules and subatomic particles. Why is that not the core of biology?

[bumblemusprime]

one must respect and honor the many beneficial scientific discoveries in our world without presuming to guess how they fit into the mystery of divinity.

I guess in some way I agree with this, as I don't pretend to understand how God does things. However I see magnificent scientific discovery and think only of God's greatness.

When I see, for example, the complexities and intricacies of the human brain alone, I respect and honor Him that much more so vs. see them as in some way separate from divinity and worthy in and of themselves of respect and honor. They are but reflections of the divine to me, and in understanding them, we only scratch the surface. In the years to come, we will contradict many of these principles we hold as fact only because we will uncover greater scientific discoveries. This has always been the way of science. If I respect and honor evolution itself, one hundred years from now I may fall into that same class of scientists who determined the world was flat, and respected and honored such belief.

It's just the statement that "evolution is the core of biology" is off the mark. It's an almost fanatical statement. Everything cannot be explained scientifically by evolution. Another scientist could argue that "quantum physics is the core of biology", for everything, all existence, really occurs at the quantum level. We are all but molecules and subatomic particles. Why is that not the core of biology?

I disagree here--evolution really is the core of all biological advancement and the study of biology is based entirely in evolution.

Why else do cells change and adapt? How about viruses and bacteria? Isn't this essentially what biology is--the study of how cells work and change?

Should we ask the Great Oracle, aka Karl? OraKarl?

[Kaylee]

It's all starting again!

[Yaya]

one must respect and honor the many beneficial scientific discoveries in our world without presuming to guess how they fit into the mystery of divinity.

I guess in some way I agree with this, as I don't pretend to understand how God does things. However I see magnificent scientific discovery and think only of God's greatness.

When I see, for example, the complexities and intricacies of the human brain alone, I respect and honor Him that much more so vs. see them as in some way separate from divinity and worthy in and of themselves of respect and honor. They are but reflections of the divine to me, and in understanding them, we only scratch the surface. In the years to come, we will contradict many of these principles we hold as fact only because we will uncover greater scientific discoveries. This has always been the way of science. If I respect and honor evolution itself, one hundred years from now I may fall into that same class of scientists who determined the world was flat, and respected and honored such belief.

It's just the statement that "evolution is the core of biology" is off the mark. It's an almost fanatical statement. Everything cannot be explained scientifically by evolution. Another scientist could argue that "quantum physics is the core of biology", for everything, all existence, really occurs at the quantum level. We are all but molecules and subatomic particles. Why is that not the core of biology?

I disagree here--evolution really is the core of all biological advancement and the study of biology is based entirely in evolution.

Why else do cells change and adapt? How about viruses and bacteria? Isn't this essentially what biology is--the study of how cells work and change?

I disagree with your, er, disagreement. Mutation is a rare event. It's so rare, in fact, that it's purely miraculous. If you take the number of normal cells in your body as a ratio to mutant cells, which are cells of change, you would find stability and uniformity vastly as the rule.

Of more interest to me are the forces that keep change in check, the forces that allow to cells to divide whilst maintaining uniformity.

Change is not the driving force of nature. If anything, it's the opposite. It's the force opposite change.

Therefore, sprunkuabeemeemopolis, the study of biology is based more strongly of uniformity, as this force is far more at work in every cell every day than that of breaking the status quo.

Yep. Uniformity is the basis of biology. More commonly, change results in disease than improvement. Then, in those rare instances where mutation is for the better, natural selection occurs and mutation becomes the new uniformity. Which happens far less.

[Shanti418]

1. Yay Me! I had to fight through OPR, MachanikalAnimal, and LROP to do so.

2. What do I need to say to stoke the fires of this "Evolution is the core of biology" flame war? I was just thinking the other day, "Man, we haven't had a good old fashioned argument over religion, science, or politics since that thread where Emvee posted the Twin Towers pic."

3. I'm glad the Board of Education isn't re-interpreting scientific progress to fit the ideology of a few. I only hope things are going as progressively on the historical side of things....

4. As bumble says, evolution IS at the core of biological study. We can say that evolution is a natural process put in place by God so that autonomous development would occur on Earth, or that evolution is all good but when it comes to Humans, God put in some special sauce that gives us our "spark" so to speak (although I wouldn't say either of these things), but evolution is THE biological mechanism.

5. You COULD say quantum physics is the core of biology for the reasons that you state, but then by that logic everything - chemistry, archeology, literature, pornography - is quantum physics at heart, and that doesn't really get us anywhere.

6. The thing about science and scientists is that if they respect and honor an idea/hypothesis/belief right now but evidence comes out that disproves the prior idea, they have no qualms about letting their ideas evolve, pun intended. For example, I think scientists would have an easier time dealing with a revelation in 2200 AD that adaptation in species actually occurs through quarks sitting around and playing with tiny, tiny marbles than you or many other people would have if we learned in 2200 AD that Jesus, Mohammad, and the like were actually cosmic shape shifters who decided to install morality for giggles.

[spiderfrommars]

I think we should settle this like sensible gentleman and put a monkey on trial.

[Kaylee]

As a point of discussion, after some thought I can't really see a problem with teaching evolution as fact at High School level.

Absolutely I agree it is a theory that happens to fit observation, and is only useful as long as no better, neater theory better fits those observations.

However that not withstanding, I don't see how it's pragmatic to teach all young people the ins-and-outs of the "Evolution is a theory" furore.

Most young people don't pay 100% attention in class, they also attend many classes, they will also forget some chunk of what they have learnt assuming they are even interested in it to begin with.

With that background in mind, shouldn't we just teach a grounding enough that they get what is generally considered the current best knowledge? There is so little chance to transfer any knowledge it seems daft to take it up with more advanced details they can pursue themselves at a later date in further study. Especially when, at high school level, those more detailed debates are likely to confuse the original, simpler knowledge we're trying to impart.

When we teach Shakespeare in English it is the broad themes of the more graspable plays and sonnets. We don't lecture on the exact historical context and numerous interpretive meanings.

When we teach physics we teach broad generalisations on Newtonian mechanics. We don't teach Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.

When we teach IT we oversimplify both the PC and the operating system. We don't go into CPU scheduling algorithms and memory mapping techniques.

Why should Biology be any different, if we're being pragmatic? Yes evolution is 'only' a theory, but I don't really see how it's a worthwhile use of young people's time to try and introduce them to the details of what is a much more complicated and nuanced debate regarding Scientific 'truth' when the only outcome of compulsory schooling should surely be an outline of the basics.

When (if?) they get to College or University then we can start going into more details and grapple with more nuanced discussion.

[Yaya]

5. You COULD say quantum physics is the core of biology for the reasons that you state, but then by that logic everything - chemistry, archeology, literature, pornography - is quantum physics at heart, and that doesn't really get us anywhere.

Funny, that was the very next point I was going to make. That the core of biology, scientifically, is quantum physics, as it is likely to be with every branch of science.

Most young people don't pay 100% attention in class, they also attend many classes, they will also forget some chunk of what they have learnt assuming they are even interested in it to begin with.

Huh. I think Karl is going with the devolution theory. That if young human beings are put into a classroom, they become much akin to monkeys. Interesting, Karl, interesting.

[Kaylee]

>> Huh. I think Karl is going with the devolution theory. That if young human beings are put into a classroom, they become much akin to monkeys. Interesting, Karl, interesting.

IME they tend to be quite chimp-like going in, so I'm not sure what they'd devolve to. Clams, maybe?

[inflatable dalek]

With the Bible, it's worth remembering that the only bit that even tries to claim to be written directly by God is the 10 Commandments. Everything else is people who probably weren't to hot on the scientific theories (such as they were) of the time trying to interoperate what they think he's telling them, or what they saw Jesus say or whatever. It's hardly surprising the Big Cheese wouldn't try to explain the Big Bang or evolutionary theory to people who hadn't even got the hang of personnel hygiene yet and would instead use metaphor rather than fact. Especially as the how and the why isn't the important part, but the whole "Try to live a good life and don't be a dick" message so many people seem to miss.

Even though I don't remotely believe in any sort of God I do think the more militant atheists do manage to shoot themselves in the foot spectacularly. Dawkins constantly mocking people who take religion on faith is especially daft because, unless you're lucky enough to be a genius with a generous research budget, anything he says has to be taken on faith by the layman as well. Not many of us are in a position to double check his facts, so it's a matter of trust that's he's not completely wrong.

And indeed, I have no doubt that many of our deeply held scientific ideas will turn out in centuries to come to be as daft as the flat Earth theory. We're only at the beginning of a journey into learning about how the Universe, to assume we have anything like a full picture is pure hubris. And that's what's exciting to me about science, it's a process that will never end, there's always new information, new ideas being uncovered. It's so much more interesting and mind blowing than "Some old creepy git with a beard did it".