OGTEleven Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I think that GG and CTM are correct, the opposition to evolution is from a very specific, minority group. People who push for ID are the same people who are not interested in examining the issue, they just want it thier way. This is nothing new. The christian church had a great deal to do with delaying scientific progress about a thousand years. They change the rules (ie, the Bible) as it suits them, adding and deleting material as they deem necessary. Religion is the antithesis of science for them. I am a chemist, have been for years. While I personally do not believe in creationism as stated in the bible, that does not mean I don't believe in God. Very few of my colleagues are what would be called atheists. The problem with your arguement OTG is that you assume that the other side here, the ID folks, are interested in the debate. They can't be convinced, because they incorrectly believe that evolution somehow cheapens thier faith. Much like it was once considered blasphemy to have the audacity to say that Earth was not the center of a perfect universe designed by the God of Isreal... 499015[/snapback] I disagree entirely and completely with people that want ID taught in schools. I have posted that in this thread four times. "The other side" is not limited to the ID folks. I am merely saying that there is a possibility that some evolution classes are being taught poorly. I am suggesting that the teachers can take a look at this and adjust if necessary. I am not even in any way questioning the underlying science or suggesting it ever be removed. Since I've been around, the methods to teach reading and math have changed several times. There always seems to be a rigourous debate that does not have religious people on one side and scientific people on the other. It is more method A people versus method B people. I assume the changes come about from some inward examination. I am not suggesting that the evolution teachers involve any IDers or anyone else in their introspection. I do think it would be helpful if they reported their findings. For this it is being suggested that I am inflexible and dogmatic among other crass things. Apparently for some this is simply because it is a science class. Since it is a science class, therefore it is being taught perfectly. To me, this view seems inflexible and dogmatic. To take it to a more personal level, I believe in God and science. This specifically includes evolution. I have seen many religious people, not just Christians, that look at science with awe when it suits them and with disdain when that suits them. I have also seen scientists look down there noses at the religious. IMO, both of these groups have shunned their own discipline when they intended to just shun the other. A good scientist and a good religious person both are seeking the truth. Some people may be both scientific and religious. Both types should be willing to acknowledge that they will be wrong at times. It is unavoidable. It does not discredit science or religion as a whole. The scientific method, by definition, admits science will be wrong at times. This is good and one of science's greatest strengths. The scientific method, or some rudimentary form of it, has its place in everyday life all the time. People that practice the scientific method or one of its rudimentary forms do not always carry out this task well. Sometimes they rely on the easy way out. That is a part of human nature that does not go well with science. Everyone falls prey to it at times. Admitting that would not hurt anyone. In my experience, the purely religious are more fearful and rigid than are the scientists. I don't actually think most of them are stupid, it just seems that they have built up a rock hard inflexibility over time and might not allow themselves to think. I don't think it is healthy. IMO, it is not productive for society as a whole. This same rigidity can be found to varying degrees in any person; scientist, salesperson, teacher, administrator, TO. Individually or as groups they can take the easy way out and convince themselves they are taking the high road. If you put a gun to my head and told me do go to CTM/GG's side or IDers side, I have no question where I would go. I don't think the gun and/or full and complete knowledge of all things scientific would ever make me think I'm always going to be right and everyone else can stick it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I disagree entirely and completely with people that want ID taught in schools. I have posted that in this thread four times. "The other side" is not limited to the ID folks. I am merley saying that there is a possibility that some evolution classes are being taught poorly. I am suggesting that the teachers can take a look at this and adjust if necessary. I am not even in any way questioning the underlying science or suggesting it ever be removed. I am not suggesting that the teachers involve any IDers or anyone else in their introspection. I do think it would be helpful if they reported their findings. For this it is being suggested that I am inflexible and dogmatic among other crass things. Apparently for some this is simply because it is a science class. Since it is a science class, therefore it is being taught perfectly. To me, this view seems inflexible and dogmatic. 499069[/snapback] Perhaps you might add specific ways in which science classes can be taught better. I think the problem in this thread is it is not clear what you mean when you suggest that the classes are being taught improperly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Perhaps you might add specific ways in which science classes can be taught better. I think the problem in this thread is it is not clear what you mean when you suggest that the classes are being taught improperly. 499074[/snapback] I just edited more into my previous post. I hope it helps in some way, but it is not what you asked for. It would be very presumptuous of me to suggest specific ways to make evolution class better. I did throw a couple out in an earlier post but do not pretend they are well informed. They are merely darts. I think it is possible that today's classes are being taught perfectly. I just don't think it would hurt to look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 1=3 should never be taught in a math class (unless for self esteem purposes ). Teaching 3=3 has never seemed to cause a debate over God vs. math. I don't know if this means religious zealots can be "reasonable" but I wouldn't go that far. Evolution, on the other hand, is a little more nebulous than 3=3. Not so much in its science (although not much matches 3=3) but moreso in how it is interpreted. 498900[/snapback] Philosophically, I'd disagree with you there. Math is just a representation, an idea, a man-made one, to help us account for the way we think the world works. Evolution is the same kind of thing. It's not absolute, even though we detect and infer patterns from the natural world. The hang-up for Bible literalists is that they (say they) honestly believe every word of the Bible was written by the hand of the Lord (meanwhile I don't see many of them living Kosher lifestyles or selling their wives into slavery, but I digress). So they take what they see as a man-made idea that conflicts with the divinely fashioned text, and attack it. People who view the Bible (I believe rightly) as a malleable text, one for which there were great political struggles as to what was included and what was not, and for which the oldest parts of the text are perhaps more tribal myth than pure history, don't seem to have as big of a problem with evolution, or the way it's taught. Sorry if that sounds very convoluted. The people who do have a problem with the way it's taught, as others on this board have posited, likely don't care a whit about evolution or getting equal time. They want their beliefs forced upon the classroom, ultimately. These people should send their kids to private school. Honestly, I think parents are (or should be) a strong enough influence on their kids that they try to instill what they believe in them, and then the kids are left to their own decisions. They can't be automatons. My parents did this for me, but ultimately let me become my own person and shape my own beliefs, which are a bit different from theirs, but rooted in the values they raised me with (we don't always agree, but we have good conversation about it). I know for some this kind of thing is a problem, but I would be proud of my kids if they were thinking about these topics a lot, and trying to understand our world -- and the world without -- better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I just edited more into my previous post. I hope it helps in some way, but it is not what you asked for. It would be very presumptuous of me to suggest specific ways to make evolution class better. I did throw a couple out in an earlier post but do not pretend they are well informed. They are merely darts. I think it is possible that today's classes are being taught perfectly. I just don't think it would hurt to look. 499082[/snapback] I undertstand what you are trying to say, I just don't think any of this controversey has much to do with the manner, method and means of teaching science. The ID/creationists are trying to force a change in what is taught, not how it is taught. There is no way I am going to vouch for the teaching styles and procedures of science teachers everywhere. I have no idea how they are doing what they do, on the whole. I do know, however, that forcing this stuff into science class is ridiculous. I do know that it is a firebrand issue for the religious right and that they will not be giving up on this anytime soon. I think you agree on that point and the other stuff, teaching styles, is not really a political issue upon which I have a stance. Hence my relative and unusual silence for most of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Math is just a representation, an idea, a man-made one, to help us account for the way we think the world works. 499137[/snapback] I agree with your post except the part quoted above. Man didn't create math, it is the fundemental language of the universe. Consider life on earth. Life may be different on another planet in another galaxy, but 2 + 2 is going to equal four everywhere. Any intellegent lifeforms only way to communicate would be through math, a language everyone can understand. A small, off-topic point I know, but important... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 If it is but evolution, then survival of the fittest is valid for all species, and so if you accept evolution as the controlling factor, you must also accept the concept of a master race among humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 If it is but evolution, then survival of the fittest is valid for all species, and so if you accept evolution as the controlling factor, you must also accept the concept of a master race among humans. 499489[/snapback] Of course, to do that you also have to equate speciation to racism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 If it is but evolution, then survival of the fittest is valid for all species, and so if you accept evolution as the controlling factor, you must also accept the concept of a master race among humans. 499489[/snapback] That does not follow at all. The goal is survival, not master-racehood. There are lots of excellent strategies for survival that would have nothing to do with creating a master race. Many species do quite well with no measurable intellegence at all or the ability to "master" others. Bacteria and viruses come to mind. As for a "master race", that is not a biological concept. There were, at times in the far distant past, more than one proto-human species on the planet at the same time. One did not "master" the other to reach dominion over the earth. One simply out reproduced the other and outcompeted with them for many of the same resources. Eventually the numbers for one group thin out making them vulnerable to extinction. Such species can go extinct based only on their own problems, not all were wiped out by a competitor. Some evolutionary events are accidents of nature, weather, whatever. There have been those who have twisted the science to provide some support for their own atrocious beliefs. Those who have, have abused and misused science. You are following the same path only with a different goal. You repeat their twisted view of science to discredit the science. That only works if you think that people like the Nazi's made fair and accurate use of the science. Your argument seems to be that the science must be wrong because it led to the Nazis. Newsflash: twisted, murderous regimes have been aroung a lot longer than evolution, the Nazis didn't invent the idea of a genocidal military state. One thing all such states have in common, is the twisting of all possible justifications to support their madness. Maybe they forced temple priests to proclaim that Jupiter favored Ceasar's reign. Maybe they claimed that they were themselves divine. Whatever. The Nazi's were no different. They twisted history and science, whatever they could, to legitimize their rule. What you appear do be doing is almost as bad. You take their twisting of science and present it as valid inorder to discredit the science. In essence, you are citing Hitler as an authority for how bad evolution is with this "master race" stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Of course, to do that you also have to equate speciation to racism. 499493[/snapback] Doesn't it amaze you that some people take their understanding of evolution from a Nazi Pary handbook circa 1932 and then denounce it because of that understanding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Doesn't it amaze you that some people take their understanding of evolution from a Nazi Pary handbook circa 1932 and then denounce it because of that understanding? 499565[/snapback] No. Most people's understanding of evolution is very much like their understanding of everything else: it doesn't go beyond what they hear on the evening news. Different topic, but same sort of basic ignorance we see in people's opinions on damn near every other topic discussed here... ...save the topic of self-aggrandizing Nazi Werewolves in Iraq. That's on a whole different level... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Newsflash: twisted, murderous regimes have been aroung a lot longer than evolution, 499549[/snapback] It's revealing to hear that human endeavor preceded evolution. Can't say I've heard that espoused. BTW, any idea why life goes against randomness and produces optically active levo racemates as opposed to a 50-50 mix? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 It's revealing to hear that human endeavor preceded evolution. Can't say I've heard that espoused. BTW, any idea why life goes against randomness and produces optically active levo racemates as opposed to a 50-50 mix? 499697[/snapback] Because biological molecules tend to be chirial, which will provide the opportunity for selevtive pressure against one (levo-, in your example) versus the other. Any idea why the universe overwhelmingly prefers right-handed quantum spin to left-handed? Should be 50-50. Must be because particle physics was designed by a Supreme Intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Any idea why the universe overwhelmingly prefers right-handed quantum spin to left-handed? Should be 50-50. Must be because particle physics was designed by a Supreme Intelligence. 499700[/snapback] Hold your horses. I challenged Mickey first! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Hold your horses. I challenged Mickey first! 499710[/snapback] Too late. It was surprisingly difficult to verify on the web whether DNA was dextro- or levo-. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Any idea why the universe overwhelmingly prefers right-handed quantum spin to left-handed? Should be 50-50. Must be because particle physics was designed by a Supreme Intelligence. 499700[/snapback] Right-hand rule. Don't blame atoms for their collective fate re life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Right-hand rule. Don't blame atoms for their collective fate re life. 499715[/snapback] Nope. Turn-of-the-century, physics actually went from the left- to right-hand rule, and they found that physics didn't change (which was a major discovery at the time). 50 years later, when they were developing electroweak theory, they actually discovered that "handedness" was not a conserved quantity, and the universe preferentially creates right-handed particles over left- (which won its discoverers one of the quickest Nobel Prizes ever awarded - six months from inception of idea to publication of experimental results, nine more months from publication to the award.) And of course, when they reached that point of discovery, physics just collectively threw up its hands and said "Well, it must be because the universe was designed, and that's the way God wanted it." No more investigation necessary... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Too late. It was surprisingly difficult to verify on the web whether DNA was dextro- or levo-. 499712[/snapback] IF it ever comes up in conversation, here's the way to explain the difficult concept of stereoisomerism: Tell one to look at one's hands. They will agree that they are identical (for purposes of illustration - obviously there are macro differences). Tell them to place one hand on a surface, and the other hand on top, matching the position of the fingers. One thumb points left, the other, right. Yet, they are the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Nope. Turn-of-the-century, physics actually went from the left- to right-hand rule, and they found that physics didn't change (which was a major discovery at the time). 50 years later, when they were developing electroweak theory, they actually discovered that "handedness" was not a conserved quantity, and the universe preferentially creates right-handed particles over left- (which won its discoverers one of the quickest Nobel Prizes ever awarded - six months from inception of idea to publication of experimental results, nine more months from publication to the award.) And of course, when they reached that point of discovery, physics just collectively threw up its hands and said "Well, it must be because the universe was designed, and that's the way God wanted it." No more investigation necessary... 499721[/snapback] OK. Any furthur research going on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 IF it ever comes up in conversation, here's the way to explain the difficult concept of stereoisomerism: Tell one to look at one's hands. They will agree that they are identical (for purposes of illustration - obviously there are macro differences). Tell them to place one hand on a surface, and the other hand on top, matching the position of the fingers. One thumb points left, the other, right. Yet, they are the same. 499727[/snapback] That's a difficult concept? And - like you said - they are NOT identical. They are chirial - near mirror images, but with not insignificant differences. Just like <gasp> racemates. So why do people preferentially use one hand over the other? Must be because we were intelligently designed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts