Evolution, Education and Culture: a solution?

Keep going, and you'll get to the nub of the matter. This is getting somewhere. Is this the case, as follows?

1) The overwhelming majority of people are creationist, if you define creationism as attributing the Creation to a Creator.

2) They aren't so gullible as to accept that any one brand of "evolution" necessarily equals Evolution - the unrolling of life, as she happened. They have a few clues about the way science lurches along, and they know that today's indisputable fact might be tomorrow's laughingstock.

3) They aren't ready just now to fully endorse, as science, the idea that new species arrive by Mum having a baby which is quantifiably less human than Mum. That's Common Descent.

Conclusion? Put more faith in humanity, and get some common sense educators to educate the educators. Or just hang in there with good old free enterprise and free speech. Well done.

Creationism: rejecting much science especially evolutionary biology for (admitted or not) sectarian reasons.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Keep going, and you'll get to the nub of the matter. This is getting somewhere. Is this the case, as follows? 1) The overwhelming majority of people are creationist, if you define creationism as attributing the Creation to a Creator.

2) They aren't so gullible as to accept that any one brand of "evolution" necessarily equals Evolution - the unrolling of life, as she happened. They have a few clues about the way science lurches along, and they know that today's indisputable fact might be tomorrow's laughingstock.

3) They aren't ready just now to fully endorse, as science, the idea that new species arrive by Mum having a baby which is quantifiably less human than Mum. That's Common Descent.

Conclusion? Put more faith in humanity, and get some common sense educators to educate the educators. Or just hang in there with good old free enterprise and free speech. Well done.

Rilke's Granddaughter said:

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Keep going, and you'll get to the nub of the matter. This is getting somewhere. Is this the case, as follows? 1) The overwhelming majority of people are creationist, if you define creationism as attributing the Creation to a Creator.

No one does, so your point is moot.

2) They aren't so gullible as to accept that any one brand of "evolution" necessarily equals Evolution - the unrolling of life, as she happened. They have a few clues about the way science lurches along, and they know that today's indisputable fact might be tomorrow's laughingstock.

Most people are demonstrably ignorant of science and logic. You are a case in point.

3) They aren't ready just now to fully endorse, as science, the idea that new species arrive by Mum having a baby which is quantifiably less human than Mum. That's Common Descent.

So what? Science isn't settled by what the "people decide". Questions of science are settled by research and hard-work.

Conclusion? Put more faith in humanity, and get some common sense educators to educate the educators. Or just hang in there with good old free enterprise and free speech. Well done.

Next time you should try reading the article and the OP. Fortunately, you have nothing to do with education.

A national survey of high school biology teachers found that about one sixth of them are young earth creationists. Of the remaining 5 sixths, most are in a large muddled middle.

If we want teachers to have a course in evolution, what sort of course is best?

What about a course debunking ID? (One university offers that, I can't remember exactly) Use Explore Evolution or the design of life (Bootleg copies if possible) and debunk their points one by one, the teachers will come out with a better knowledge of evolutionary biology as well as the immune system against ID bullshit.

And we need a more standardized education system.

If you start by saying to clergy or indeed to anyone “Creationism makes religion look dumb and dishonest”, you have a chance to get a conversation started. Of course you have to be able to follow up and explain why creationism makes religion look dumb and dishonest.

FL said: Evolutionists tend to be kinda strong on Science but kinda dog-day-pitiful on the Bible, and that particular weakness tends to manifest itself clearly on assignments like the above. Think it over, amigos!

FL said:

If you start by saying to clergy or indeed to anyone “Creationism makes religion look dumb and dishonest”, you have a chance to get a conversation started. Of course you have to be able to follow up and explain why creationism makes religion look dumb and dishonest.

Evolutionists tend to be kinda strong on Science but kinda dog-day-pitiful on the Bible, and that particular weakness tends to manifest itself clearly on assignments like the above. Think it over, amigos! FL :)

I wish the problem were so simple as being limited to evolution.

When I look at the materials my sons bring home from middle school and high school, I see confusion between action-reaction and cause-effect, I see confusion between velocity and acceleration, I see confusion between force and energy, and I even see confusion between force and mass.

One might think that higher course standards would fix this problem, but in fact the standards themselves are part of the problem: For many years, the Ohio fourth-grade standards said that students should understand that motion happens only when a force is present. This was, fortunately, changed in the most recent round of revisions and replaced with the correct "force causes a change in motion".

But when were students supposed to learn this fact? (As background, let me say that in my experience it's easy to get anyone to recite the words of this fact, but difficult for even college freshmen to understand it.) According to the revised Ohio standards, students are supposed to learn it in kindergarten!

If you are there, FL, I would like to hear your story.

I think this thread is making a good point. Cultural background plays a larger role than one might think. I rather think that if everyone sat down and explained themselves, this little diversion would sort itself out - except, perforce, for the hard core minorities.

Very few people entertain themselves through analyzing Origins all day. They sift through it, cast anchor, and defy the hurricane. I bump into these anchored ships all the time. They can make a clam look like an extrovert, when it comes to actually visualizing and verbalizing their standpoint. They can act like bears. All rather mystifying. To be honest, I don't comprehend the clammishness and the cast anchor - but then again, I don't comprehend a lot of things. I am just entranced by science, and overawed by the Scriptures, which facilitate scientific thought and advance. But I never encountered Young Earth Creationism in my cultural background, until I had done geology first, under very fine, non-bigotted people.

Teacher pay is a serious issue. I teacher in a very good district, where salary for a new teacher with a B.S. is $32,000/year. College graduates with good biology credentials have better paying options. Students who majored in "natural science," which requires only introductory courses in a variety of sciences are unqualified for jobs that require any in-depth knowledge of science, so teaching salary may be competitive for them.

Adding course requirements will not solve this issue. Schools will hire the most qualified teachers. If enough teachers had strong science education, we would hire them. However, schools need a teacher in every classroom, and there aren't enough highly qualified applicants. Adding requirements just reduces that application pool further.

I encourage readers of this blog to work actively to improve teacher pay, but it is challenging. Schools do not have the option of using better salaries to attract specific well qualified teachers. Schools have to raise the pay of every teacher, so teachers with a natural science or educations degrees from no-name schools will get the same increases as teachers with physics or biology degrees from leading research universities.

Perhaps readers of this blog could come up with some creative solutions. For example, could we offer scholarships to entice graduates with strong science backgrounds into teaching?

I honestly cannot comprehend how in Odin's name somebody can read the Bible and then make the utterly astonishing claim that the contradictory nonsense contained therein "facilitate[s] scientific thought and advance". Beyond the wishful thinking and seeking to shoehorn science into a god shaped box, that is. It boggles the mind.

I'm being theoretical to some extent here. If you knew a school that you could access, with a really top science staff, you would take steps to patronize that school. Problem. Not enough high quality schools. Solution? Somehow, break through regulation, or employ new technology/methods, to enable people to patronize the good teachers in big numbers. Free enterprise.

Strangely, most of the world's brilliant people came out of societies that didn't have universal public education. And of those that did come out of society in which public education had got up and running, quite a few were school drop-outs. Free enterprise again.

Evolutionists and Creationists better BOTH realize something fast.

Norman Fell created life, the universe and everything. Nobody can prove it's not true. All of existence has been fine-tuned for His benefit.

Deal with it, FL and PBH.

Let me add to my previous entry. From the two Bacons, through to Planck, and leaving out hundreds of names in between (such as Kepler, Newton, Dalton, Mendeleev, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Pasteur, Joule, R. Owen, Maxwell, Morse, Fabre, Faraday, Kelvin ....) they were more-or-less Bible men. Some of them not only didn't make it to school; they barely survived the hardships of youth.

Edison is an interesting case, on the subject of education - he got the equivalent of a few weeks. Hearing disorder. I can't attest to his biblical alignment, either way. We are sitting at a computer today, thanks to him. Free enterprise, genetics, motivation through hardship, faith...... I don't know.

Draconiz said: If we want teachers to have a course in evolution, what sort of course is best? What about a course debunking ID? (One university offers that, I can't remember exactly) Use Explore Evolution or the design of life (Bootleg copies if possible) and debunk their points one by one, the teachers will come out with a better knowledge of evolutionary biology as well as the immune system against ID bullshit.

If we want teachers to have a course in evolution, what sort of course is best? Are there key groups other than teachers on which to focus educational effort? If opposition to evolution is cultural, what specific steps should be taken? I’m going to leave the first question to commenters, and offer a surprising answer to the other two: Explain the matter to pastors!

— Pete Dunkelberg

Well, don't sit there, get him to fix the education system.

Evolutionists tend to be kinda strong on Science but kinda dog-day-pitiful on the Bible, and that particular weakness tends to manifest itself clearly on assignments like the above. Think it over, amigos!

— FL

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Well, don't sit there, get him to fix the education system.

What about a course debunking ID?

— Draconiz

Gavin said: Schools will hire the most qualified teachers. If enough teachers had strong science education, we would hire them.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Strangely, most of the world’s brilliant people came out of societies that didn’t have universal public education.

Television has been the Great Educator. Many Americans have learned, for example, that if you run off a cliff gravity does not begin to have an effect until after you look down. And that great documentary series, "The Flintsones" (and its spinoff museum in Kentucky), has taught us so much about natural history.

Usually, when I hear about individuals working on "paradigm-shifting" inventions and concepts who have not had traditional educations and are heroes of the Free Market, they are engaged in building perpetual motion machines, extracting free energy from The Vacuum, and frequently offering investment opportunities.

Dubious that Creationism can be an embarrassment to the religious? Consider William "Deer-in-the-headlights" Buckingham and the "breathtaking inanity" of the Dover affair.

As one of those Theistic Evolutionists who has actually read the Bible and who also publishes in the field of evolutionary biology let me strongly recommend that everyone on this list read Francis Collins "The Language of God" I especially recommend it to my agnostic and atheist colleagues, but not for the reason you might think.

Unlike Collins I am not out to evangelize (runs counter to my Episcopalian leanings). Rather I think that one of the points being made in the the PLoS paper is that we as science educators have failed to connect with our audience. If you accepted a teaching assignment overseas would you make no effort to understand the language and the culture of your students? Of course you would, it would make you a better teacher. The Language of God helps devout (and maybe not so devout) Christians understand how evolution is not a threat to their belief in God. It also gives the agnostic and atheist teacher the insight they need to present the scientific material in way that anticipates and avoids the presumed conflict that most Americans believe to exist.

As I said, the form of Christianity that Collins professes is not the same as my own, but by giving the evolutionists a view of how evangelicals think (and vice versa) it goes a long way towards accomplishing the goal of getting real science education into the classroom and effectively reaching the young people who really need to hear it.

Mark Farmer said: As I said, the form of Christianity that Collins professes is not the same as my own, but by giving the evolutionists a view of how evangelicals think (and vice versa) it goes a long way towards accomplishing the goal of getting real science education into the classroom and effectively reaching the young people who really need to hear it.

Why do you think it is necessary to know a lot about the bible to be able to explain the evidence for evolution to someone, clergy or not?

As to changing the education system, I have often been thinking we should introduce logic courses into high schools, maybe even primary schools too. For example, we should teach people how to recognize the most common logical fallacies. Empowering people to tell good arguments from bad ones would be tremendously useful for both individuals and our society as a whole. I'm sure there are plenty of ID texts that would make fine practice material. Besides, a course like that could even be a lot of fun for the students - who here doesn't like to carefully pick apart a bad argument?

Also, science classes should spend more time on teaching the scientific method itself. In my experience, almost all time is spent on teaching students to use particular formulas or perform certain calculations. This is understandable, since these abilities are both important and easy to test. However, it leaves very little room for explaining important concepts like falsifiability, the provisional nature of science, what you should do to eliminate bias, or the built-in quality control mechanisms of science. I think changing this could be very beneficial, even if it happens at the expense of the ability to perform certain calculations.

These proposals hardly need PhD level teachers to implement them. Nonetheless, application of the fairly basic skills taught in these proposals should be enough to poke holes in most ID arguments, for instance, but also in most arguments for CAM treatments, or many arguments in several other political controversies.

Above comment was accidentally labeled as a reply to FL, while it was meant to be a reply to the original post. My apologies for the confusion.

FL said:

If you start by saying to clergy or indeed to anyone “Creationism makes religion look dumb and dishonest”, you have a chance to get a conversation started. Of course you have to be able to follow up and explain why creationism makes religion look dumb and dishonest.

Yeah, you had mama-jama better be "able to", 'cause some of us clergy and laity just might be ready for you when you initiate that particular line of argument, given all the manifold print and online [lies] now available to help people of faith evaluate and respond to your particular claim there. My own personal experience, from multiple conversations in this forum and elsewhere, has been that this particular assignment may well be too difficult for most evolutionists (like 99 percent of 'em or something). Evolutionists tend to be kinda strong on Science but kinda dog-day-pitiful on the Bible, and that particular weakness tends to manifest itself clearly on assignments like the above. Think it over, amigos! FL :)

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Let me add to my previous entry. From the two Bacons, through to Planck, and leaving out hundreds of names in between (such as Kepler, Newton, Dalton, Mendeleev, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Pasteur, Joule, R. Owen, Maxwell, Morse, Fabre, Faraday, Kelvin ....) they were more-or-less Bible men. Some of them not only didn't make it to school; they barely survived the hardships of youth.

Edison is an interesting case, on the subject of education - he got the equivalent of a few weeks. Hearing disorder. I can't attest to his biblical alignment, either way. We are sitting at a computer today, thanks to him.

Free enterprise, genetics, motivation through hardship, faith...... I don't know.

FL said:

Why do you think it is necessary to know a lot about the bible to be able to explain the evidence for evolution to someone, clergy or not?

Because a well-prepared biblical Christian would know when a particular evolutionist historical claim happens to directly and permanently clash with a particular Bible historical claim (the origin of the first humans being a stellar example), and be able to explain to you exactly why there is no possible compatibility. Furthermore, he or she could also explain how the religious argumentation or pre-suppositions you're using as an evolutionist (such as dysteleology and no-teleology) are in clear and irreparable disagreement with the Bible. They could also show you how (and where) certain evolutionary non-negotiables, such as Death-Before-Adam, negate foundational Bible historical claims such as the Fall and therefore negate Christianity itself. So yeah, if you don't know your own Bible, as indeed many evolutionists do not, and you start trying to talk about "evidence for evolution" with the goal of convincing somebody that evolution and Christianity are compatible, you may well simply get caught with your pre-cambrian pants down, and THAT won't be a pretty sight!!

Three Questions: If we want teachers to have a course in evolution, what sort of course is best?

— Pete Dunkelberg

Are there key groups other than teachers on which to focus educational effort?

If opposition to evolution is cultural, what specific steps should be taken?

Back in the fall of 2005, as the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial unfolded, I attended an alumni gathering at my prominent New York City public high school alma mater. During that meeting, in response to a question from a fellow alumnus, the school's principal pledged that Intelligent Design would never be taught there as long as he remained its principal. I wish other principals of both public and private high schools would take such a similar stand (In this case, it is a stand that he has to take since the school is regarded by many as America's premier high school devoted to the sciences, mathematics and technology, and has many distinguished alumni in the sciences and mathematics, including, for example, four Nobel Prize laureates, of whom the first was the late Joshua Lederberg, distinguished pioneer of molecular biology.

Regards,

John

Why do you think it is necessary to know a lot about the bible to be able to explain the evidence for evolution to someone, clergy or not?

a well-prepared biblical Christian would know when a particular evolutionist historical claim happens to directly and permanently clash with a particular Bible historical claim (the origin of the first humans being a stellar example), and be able to explain to you exactly why there is no possible compatibility.

Above here we have a rather illustrative set-up, as I see it, a theistic Evolution approach (and I have been accused of that): what I take to be a Young Earth approach (my apologies to FL if not so); and of course the old claim of Common Descent equalling science. Possibly hints of pantheism and new age - I've been labelled both - and even the suggestion of teaching logic.

If we set aside pantheism and new age, we have, as major themes, Common Descent/Darwinism; Theistic Evolution, Young Earth. So shall we apply logic?

We are thinking in terms of cultural background.

The Young Earth is coming from the requirement of biblical literacy, which must be allowed - biblical reliability, I mean. I think we also see there the perception of a need to fight anything with the E label - understandable, given what has been going on for the past 150 yrs.

After all, logic has been called upon, and logic doesn't tear up a Book that tells us the Earth is hung upon nothing, and that puts plants before marine creatures before land creatures with Man last of all. Neither does logic suggest that one species can miraculously give birth to another, nor does it suggest that having babies is a step towards speciation.

Which precludes Common Descent.

Problem: life was unfolded over time, or evolved: the biblical text itself calls on pre-existence of life-forms (e.g, all complex life created on day 5 - including such things as elephants and ostriches; land animals and birds formed on day 6, having already in essence been created on day 5!)

Try Theistic Evolution? If by that we mean Common Descent/Darwinism, we founder again on the rock of logic and observation.

Stalemate?

Create the species as information, pass the life species to species, transform species via automatic information technology signalling, set up the info. technology to accommodate environmental change. Every requirement theoretically can be met, observationally, genetically, geologically, logically, biblically.

So most/all 'cultural' inputs get incorporated. I call it, Signalled Evolution, and it was foreshadowed by Owen, approx. 1850. Talking about recognizing various cultures and influences: even old Lamarck, whom Darwin was so down on, gets a spot.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Let me add to my previous entry. From the two Bacons, through to Planck, and leaving out hundreds of names in between (such as Kepler, Newton, Dalton, Mendeleev, Linnaeus, Cuvier, Pasteur, Joule, R. Owen, Maxwell, Morse, Fabre, Faraday, Kelvin ....) they were more-or-less Bible men. Some of them not only didn't make it to school; they barely survived the hardships of youth. Edison is an interesting case, on the subject of education - he got the equivalent of a few weeks. Hearing disorder. I can't attest to his biblical alignment, either way. We are sitting at a computer today, thanks to him. Free enterprise, genetics, motivation through hardship, faith...... I don't know.

Nigel D said:

Three Questions: If we want teachers to have a course in evolution, what sort of course is best?

— Pete Dunkelberg

I think it would need to touch on four areas: (1) Core concepts of evolutionary theory (e.g. natural selection, genetic drift, selective breeding). (2) Historical development of evolutionary theory. (3) Evidence that leads to or supports evolutionary theory. (4) Alleged counter-arguments to evolutionary theory and how to address them.

Are there key groups other than teachers on which to focus educational effort?

I agree wholeheartedly with your idea to educate the clergy. After all, many scientists in the 18th and 19th centuries were clergy first and scientists later. Organisation and funding would take some working out, but I am sure there are viable models that could be assembled and put into practice.

If opposition to evolution is cultural, what specific steps should be taken?

I think getting clergy on board with pointing out the total absence of any conflict between Christian faith and good science would be a good start. Also, asking them to share with their flocks the poor theological nature of the various creationist positions (e.g. that many forms of creationism demand limits on the powers and abilities of God) would, I think, help.

FL said: Furthermore, he or she could also explain how the religious argumentation or pre-suppositions you're using as an evolutionist (such as dysteleology and no-teleology) are in clear and irreparable disagreement with the Bible.

So yeah, if you don’t know your own Bible, as indeed many evolutionists do not...

Rolf said: Complete ignorance about both the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita, Rigveda, Upanishads, or I Ching is irrelevant for science. Why should religious texts be more relevant for the theroy of evolution than for gravity, electromagnetism, astronomy, cosmology, QM, relativity, chemistry, geology, palaentology, archaeology, and so on and on?

Philip Bruce Heywood said: So shall we apply logic?

The Young Earth is coming from the requirement of biblical literacy, which must be allowed - biblical reliability, I mean.

After all, logic has been called upon, and logic doesn't tear up a Book that tells us the Earth is hung upon nothing, and that puts plants before marine creatures before land creatures with Man last of all. Neither does logic suggest that one species can miraculously give birth to another, nor does it suggest that having babies is a step towards speciation.

Problem: life was unfolded over time, or evolved: the biblical text itself calls on pre-existence of life-forms (e.g, all complex life created on day 5 - including such things as elephants and ostriches; land animals and birds formed on day 6, having already in essence been created on day 5!)

Create the species as information, pass the life species to species, transform species via automatic information technology signalling, set up the info. technology to accommodate environmental change. Every requirement theoretically can be met, observationally, genetically, geologically, logically, biblically.

If we want teachers to have a course in evolution, what sort of course is best?

Rilke's Granddaughter said:

Philip Bruce Heywood said: 1) The overwhelming majority of people are creationist, if you define creationism as attributing the Creation to a Creator.

No one does, so your point is moot.

Is anyone else going to join me in encouraging a chronology debate between FL and PBH?

Nigel D said: I think getting clergy on board with pointing out the total absence of any conflict between Christian faith and good science would be a good start.

Logic and technology are cold comfort for the inner man. That is why Christianity/the reality of God cannot be 'proved' by technical means. That is why the AIG approach keeps falling down. One is never compelled or enabled to believe in God, with the head. That is also why the universe, when created, was only "very good" - good for an ultimate purpose, which is a perfect purpose, but not technically perfect as created. One of its technical non-perfections is decay, courtesy of the 2nd Law. Another is death in the animal world. No-one, in this life or the next, can or will ever believe in God via his intellect. It doesn't happen.

But, conversely, every intellectual argument against the existence and perfection of God, fails. Christianity is perfectly logical, and provides a framework in logic for science. If there is a God, by definition he must be perfect. If he isn't, look out - the fundamental laws of Nature will fail, any time. Since, if he IS, he is perfect, therefore he is able to express himself in a way that cannot be gainsayed or undermined.

When I set out to clarify the meaning of the fossil record in light of the Scripture - and vice versa - it meant nothing to me, personally, whether the text fell out to be purely allegorical, or otherwise. What was necessary, though, was logical consistency. To my astonishment, the text showed concurrence with "out there", futuristic, modern science. Nothing new there - there are other parts of the Bible that have long been understood to be of that category - but, to my surprise, biblical Origins excelled them all.
Which, as I say, gets you or me no closer to where we are meant to be, in terms of personal fulfillment. But God will not be belittled in any way by a bunch of people who think they have a theory, that they claim is a fact, that makes the way he expresses himself (through men), dysfunctional.

With all due respect, I suggest people stop pounding away at that adamantine Rock, and have a look at the 'infallible' theory. It's more full of holes than a colander. It needs adjustment. The Scriptures are on side with scientists.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Logic and technology are cold comfort for the inner man. That is why Christianity/the reality of God cannot be 'proved' by technical means. That is why the AIG approach keeps falling down. One is never compelled or enabled to believe in God, with the head. That is also why the universe, when created, was only "very good" - good for an ultimate purpose, which is a perfect purpose, but not technically perfect as created. One of its technical non-perfections is decay, courtesy of the 2nd Law. Another is death in the animal world. No-one, in this life or the next, can or will ever believe in God via his intellect. It doesn't happen. But, conversely, every intellectual argument against the existence and perfection of God, fails. Christianity is perfectly logical, and provides a framework in logic for science. If there is a God, by definition he must be perfect. If he isn't, look out - the fundamental laws of Nature will fail, any time. Since, if he IS, he is perfect, therefore he is able to express himself in a way that cannot be gainsayed or undermined. When I set out to clarify the meaning of the fossil record in light of the Scripture - and vice versa - it meant nothing to me, personally, whether the text fell out to be purely allegorical, or otherwise. What was necessary, though, was logical consistency. To my astonishment, the text showed concurrence with "out there", futuristic, modern science. Nothing new there - there are other parts of the Bible that have long been understood to be of that category - but, to my surprise, biblical Origins excelled them all. Which, as I say, gets you or me no closer to where we are meant to be, in terms of personal fulfillment. But God will not be belittled in any way by a bunch of people who think they have a theory, that they claim is a fact, that makes the way he expresses himself (through men), dysfunctional. With all due respect, I suggest people stop pounding away at that adamantine Rock, and have a look at the 'infallible' theory. It's more full of holes than a colander. It needs adjustment. The Scriptures are on side with scientists.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: If you don't allow the wider use, how do you describe different forms of religious characteristics? Buddhism usually isn't creationist for example. Or do you go the route of rewording to "buddhists usually doesn't believe in creators"?

Of course, english isn't my primary language, so I will appreciate any pointers here.

PBH seems like a lost soul.

I confess to having responded to both PBH and other trolls, but I wish the patrons of this forum would hold back and ignore them. Arguments are wasted on them, as the record shows. References to scripture should be a red flag: We are not talking science.

If science is our subject, science is what we should discuss. We know that the spiritual world is irrelevant for science, and vice versa.

Maybe silence would be the strongest argument we could make?

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Logic and technology are cold comfort for the inner man. That is why Christianity/the reality of God cannot be 'proved' by technical means. That is why the AIG approach keeps falling down. One is never compelled or enabled to believe in God, with the head. That is also why the universe, when created, was only "very good" - good for an ultimate purpose, which is a perfect purpose, but not technically perfect as created. One of its technical non-perfections is decay, courtesy of the 2nd Law. Another is death in the animal world. No-one, in this life or the next, can or will ever believe in God via his intellect. It doesn't happen. But, conversely, every intellectual argument against the existence and perfection of God, fails. Christianity is perfectly logical, and provides a framework in logic for science. If there is a God, by definition he must be perfect. If he isn't, look out - the fundamental laws of Nature will fail, any time. Since, if he IS, he is perfect, therefore he is able to express himself in a way that cannot be gainsayed or undermined. When I set out to clarify the meaning of the fossil record in light of the Scripture - and vice versa - it meant nothing to me, personally, whether the text fell out to be purely allegorical, or otherwise. What was necessary, though, was logical consistency. To my astonishment, the text showed concurrence with "out there", futuristic, modern science. Nothing new there - there are other parts of the Bible that have long been understood to be of that category - but, to my surprise, biblical Origins excelled them all. Which, as I say, gets you or me no closer to where we are meant to be, in terms of personal fulfillment. But God will not be belittled in any way by a bunch of people who think they have a theory, that they claim is a fact, that makes the way he expresses himself (through men), dysfunctional. With all due respect, I suggest people stop pounding away at that adamantine Rock, and have a look at the 'infallible' theory. It's more full of holes than a colander. It needs adjustment. The Scriptures are on side with scientists.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Logic and technology are cold comfort for the inner man. That is why Christianity/the reality of God cannot be 'proved' by technical means. That is why the AIG approach keeps falling down. One is never compelled or enabled to believe in God, with the head. That is also why the universe, when created, was only "very good" - good for an ultimate purpose, which is a perfect purpose, but not technically perfect as created. One of its technical non-perfections is decay, courtesy of the 2nd Law. Another is death in the animal world. No-one, in this life or the next, can or will ever believe in God via his intellect. It doesn't happen. But, conversely, every intellectual argument against the existence and perfection of God, fails. Christianity is perfectly logical, and provides a framework in logic for science. If there is a God, by definition he must be perfect. If he isn't, look out - the fundamental laws of Nature will fail, any time. Since, if he IS, he is perfect, therefore he is able to express himself in a way that cannot be gainsayed or undermined. When I set out to clarify the meaning of the fossil record in light of the Scripture - and vice versa - it meant nothing to me, personally, whether the text fell out to be purely allegorical, or otherwise. What was necessary, though, was logical consistency. To my astonishment, the text showed concurrence with "out there", futuristic, modern science. Nothing new there - there are other parts of the Bible that have long been understood to be of that category - but, to my surprise, biblical Origins excelled them all. Which, as I say, gets you or me no closer to where we are meant to be, in terms of personal fulfillment. But God will not be belittled in any way by a bunch of people who think they have a theory, that they claim is a fact, that makes the way he expresses himself (through men), dysfunctional. With all due respect, I suggest people stop pounding away at that adamantine Rock, and have a look at the 'infallible' theory. It's more full of holes than a colander. It needs adjustment. The Scriptures are on side with scientists.

This forum doesn't discuss "mere matters of faith." By "faith", by definition, you do not mean the faith that believes what someone (such as God) says, but faith, in the sense of religiosity. Rolf, above you, is of your mind. Both correct. On this forum, you will not find anyone discussing Common Descent Evolution, its nuts and bolts, the mechanism by which each time someone has a baby, a quantifiable step in speciation has occurred. You won't find it discussed, because by definition it not only flatly contradicts the fossil record, it means that some humans are less human than others. Or would you now care to actually discuss this "faith", and tell us about speciation, the real event that happened repeatedly in Nature? Science only discusses rational, quantifiable things. Signalled Evolution is quantifiable, and calls on no mysterious mechanism. Common Descent Evolution can't even logically describe the speciation event. If it can, go ahead.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Common Descent Evolution can't even logically describe the speciation event. If it can, go ahead.

Classic, L.B., Classic. I was supposed to know all that stuff, once. It rolls, it reverberates. I suspect it's fully accurate. But I could never figure out,
a) How all that can happen in the case of highly mobile organisms inhabiting (as the fossils show) the same neck of the woods; and
b) How from those observations and hypotheses we see the physical chemistry of the DNA, Immune System, and species lock re-programming actions.

I wish I could recite stuff like that.

My take on speciation (I am not a biologist, though, this is just how I envision it):

Every organism has a certain subset of other organisms it can breed with. We might model the organisms as points in a plane, with two organisms fully compatible if their distance is less than 1, and partially compatible (with smoothly falling viability of the offspring) if the distance is less than two.

Mutation represents that occassionally an organism might appear just outside the borders of the blob formed by all organisms in the population. When an organism dies, the corresponding point disappears.

Evolution under natural selection would result in the whole blob moving in a particular direction, like if blown by a wind. Genetic drift would look akin to Brown movement, slow movement in random direction, but it can nonetheless add to significant difference over time.

Now for speciation: It would simply look like the blob growing larger. When it gets sufficiently large, the opposite ends will be too distant, and organisms at those ends will become reproductively isolated from each other. This is a state corresponding to ring species. To achieve the full speciation at this point, all you have to do is to have all organisms die, except for two groups at the opposite ends, either suddenly or gradually. From this point on, you have two unambiguous species.

Of course, this model has its weak spots - for example it would suggest that two populations separated in this way could find the way back together in the future. This is a result of small number of dimensions - I think the probability of this happening falls as the number of dimensions grows.

Do you think this is a good illustration of how speciation happens?

Marek 14 said: [...] Genetic drift would look akin to Brown movement, slow movement in random direction, but it can nonetheless add to significant difference over time.

Eric Finn said: Bats did not invent same kinds of wings (bone structures) as birds. This fact supports the idea of common ancestry.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: On this forum, you will not find anyone discussing Common Descent Evolution, its nuts and bolts, the mechanism by which each time someone has a baby, a quantifiable step in speciation has occurred.

Stanton said:

Eric Finn said: Bats did not invent same kinds of wings (bone structures) as birds. This fact supports the idea of common ancestry.

Actually, no. The fact that bats, whales, and primates have the same bone structure in their forearms supports the idea of common ancestry.

Your description and that of Mr. Finn's, which follows, mirrors my own, before I somehow updated it. As I have previously intimated, (when I was trying to teach bible/science in a classroom) I cleared the whiteboard, wrote up the geologic facts, wrote up the biblical account, and made an analysis. You see, the Bible contains an account of some sort of pre-existence of life forms. The classic is the earth bringing forth all plants (= anything simpler than something about sponge level, exclude viruses), day 3, coincident with planetary accretion: yet it implies that the fruiting and flowering plants didn't get "called on", if you like, until day 6. And it says, in as many words, that this is exactly how it was - plants were all in existence, before they were in the earth. GENESIS 2:4,5, Authorized Version, king's English.

Forget the bit about the earth being young - if it is, we can tear up the Bible, because it demands in 20 places(as a technicality, irrelevant to personal faith) an extremely ancient formation date for the earth.

And it also demands species pre-existence. Sleep on that, gents.

SWT, I'll grant I was a little confusing. When I came to analyze what was written on the whiteboard, it became apparent that there must be a mechanism by which species can exist without being visible. What exists without being visible, but can manifest as something visible, if you press a switch? Information, say, stored in a computer, which, when transmitted, interacts with something capable of being real-ized I repeat real-ized by it. A transformer toy, for example, changes its form when it receives information.

This led me to think - "Hey, all that stuff about speciation - none of it tells us exactly how the changes to DNA, immune systems, and species locks, happens, hands on. In the cell. Which proton gets shunted where. What technical modification to the immune system allows the conduit species to bear and if need be, rear, a new species. How does the info.technology trip the species lock, and how does it set a new species lock?"

Speciation happened, and to throw time, chance, accidental isolation, and hypothetical mutations at the problem - all of which are observationally not causing any improvement in higher life at all in the modern biosphere - is no better than asserting that dust plus time plus moisture plus warmth produces lice. That's "faith", if you like - in the sense of something like mysticism. It ain't empirical research. Convinced Common Descent Evolutionists keep saying, "those are the mechanisms", but they don't have anything showing the tie between those supposed mechanisms and the real mechanics of the speciation event. By continuously going into denial over this, they show that their mechanism relies on something unquantifiable, and, because it is unquantifiable, they don't discuss it. In fact, a minority of them act as though their religion has been insulted! They have nothing to discuss. Every time I ask for the mechanism - i.e., the actual physical chemistry as in cosmic ray + DNA gives re-programmed DNA, the answer is, mutations, isolation, ring species, what have you. The dust, the rain, the warmth. No louse eggs.

Common Descent, with the jargon removed, means, Mum having a baby which is quantifiably not totally the same species as Mum. This explains the fossil record and the existing biosphere. Well, you tell me what the hang it means? I laboured with this concept for years.
And like I point out elsewhere, this happens in the same locality, repeatedly, to highly mobile organisms, and geologists can establish time surfaces in rock strata based on the precision with which identifiable genetic units known as species, appear, or suddenly change in abundance, or go extinct.

That's not Mum giving birth to fractionally not Mum. That's Mum, surrogate mothering something that is genetically not Mum, possibly a single generation event, full re-programming of the embryo, partial re-programming of Mum so she sees the babe as her own species. All theoretically achievable, now. You would be able to delineate the fine details far better than I. What isn't possible is to get a grapevine to bear figs, which the Good Book disallows, and Common Descent demands.

Let me qualify the grapevine - figs statement. Although one species cannot produce another species through normal reproductive means, it seems to me to be an inevitable conclusion, all things taken into account, that the speciation event implicated exceptional circumstances, under which the conduit species was modified in some way to become conformable to the new species. Thus, a grapevine did not bear figs, but a grapevine, having been modified in some hidden way through info. technology, became the conduit for a new plant species. Takes some getting the head around. But the theory is all there - it's possible.

We don't see speciation of higher life forms now - the way to the Tree of Life is barred to fallen man. If that way wasn't barred, I suspect we could make new species. We would certainly have eternal youth - perfect genetics information programming capability.

The classic is the earth bringing forth all plants (= anything simpler than something about sponge level, exclude viruses), day 3,

What isn’t possible is to get a grapevine to bear figs, which the Good Book disallows, and Common Descent demands.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Common Descent, with the jargon removed, means, Mum having a baby which is quantifiably not totally the same species as Mum. This explains the fossil record and the existing biosphere. Well, you tell me what the hang it means? I laboured with this concept for years. And like I point out elsewhere, this happens in the same locality, repeatedly, to highly mobile organisms, and geologists can establish time surfaces in rock strata based on the precision with which identifiable genetic units known as species, appear, or suddenly change in abundance, or go extinct.

Tell us more. Are we witnessing the birth of a new science, here? I'll leave the above couple for someone else. It's post 3am here and things are eerie enough. But I do say, keep verbalizing it, keep it ticking over, and eventually the illogicalities will sift out. What is the difference between plant-grade and animal-grade life? Does it cut in APPROXIMATELY (quoting myself) at the sponges? What could the Cambrian event mean? Why is great-great-great-great-grandmother NOT quantifiably less human species than me?

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Tell us more. Are we witnessing the birth of a new science, here? I'll leave the above couple for someone else. It's post 3am here and things are eerie enough. But I do say, keep verbalizing it, keep it ticking over, and eventually the illogicalities will sift out. What is the difference between plant-grade and animal-grade life? Does it cut in APPROXIMATELY (quoting myself) at the sponges? What could the Cambrian event mean? Why is great-great-great-great-grandmother NOT quantifiably less human species than me?

I am sure the proof of God's involvement in anything evolutionary will be proved when the message is read in one gene sequence that reads ' ©Yhwh '

Ideally, species refers to a genetically self-contained unit, which can only be defined as such if it is observed over a prolonged period, in the wild, without human engineering.

We could go to some lengths over the topic, noting the difficulties of observation, temporary anomalies and departures(you touch on such matters), hybridization, difficulties with plants and microbes, lack of clear definition in some cases. We could investigate recent microbiological research pointing to possible locking mechanisms that prevent new species arising through crossing individuals of different species. (Hybridization). We could attempt to define species by looking at the bio-chemistry inside the cell. Vast topic.

Two factors are self-evident. Biologists see only a snap shot. Palaeontologists observe, in a sense, the full story of organisms over time. Thus, a zoologist may infer something from a ring species that fades in time, so that a palaeontologist does not encounter the anomaly. Temporary aberrations and departures may startle the contemporary observer, but he does not get the overall picture of what that population has done in the past and is likely to do in the future.

There are three glaring facts relating to species. Those who equate evolution to Common Descent, may tend to overlook all three.
1) There are abundant, obvious species around us. They are quantifiably different. Observationally they are distinct genetic units: the observation is now getting to be confirmed through research of proteins in sex cells or something such. And they are not gradually changing to something that is a wit more or less than the species that they are.

2) These everyday observations are confirmed by the fossil record, without contradiction. Species did not gradually transform into genetically distinct units, in the past. Transformation was abrupt in many cases, and cannot be shown to have been otherwise, in disputed cases.

3) Species can have a startling capacity to adapt, to hybridize, to seemingly become divided, in response to living conditions.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Why is great-great-great-great-grandmother NOT quantifiably less human species than me?

but neither one is infertile on his/her own, and could have children with other partners. Does that mean that such people belong to two different species?

Are we witnessing the birth of a new science, here?

I’ll leave the above couple for someone else.

And they are not gradually changing to something that is a wit more or less than the species that they are.

What is the difference between plant-grade and animal-grade life?

So the whole questions boils down to this: Just what is a “species”?

Did Beowulff write that somewhere? He may well have done; I don't just now recall it. I think perhaps Marek?

There is nothing fuzzy about T. Rex. We could add thousands to that list, from all phyla.

People really need to visit PBH’s website to see how strange his views are.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: There is nothing fuzzy about T. Rex. We could add thousands to that list, from all phyla.

What confuses me (and what would I know, I’m not even a “biologist, PhD” or the discoverer of those damned elusive “Creatons”), is why the Great Ladder of Creation shows all those intermediate steps. All the required information is already in the genome or the designer-mechanism-thing according to our new “mate” Borger and Miss Ann Elk (PBH).

IIRC Ms Elk’s theory is as follows “*AHEM* *AHEM* My theory, which is mine and belongs to me, goes after the following manner *AHEM, AHEM* Speciation is not a process occurring in a population but a single, instantaneous EVENT! This is impossible, so it needs…errr…Information theory! (phew! Great… good phrase, must google it, sometime) acted upon by something like…err… Quantum computing! (yeah! Zeitgeisty buzzword! I’m really cookin’ now) so that the designer can change all the genes by…err…err… something like getting a thylacine gene to be expressed by a mouse, but ,like, way, way cooler. Errrr…The Bible! Some stuff about plants and animals being “grades” . Errrr…diseases and poisonous snakes and shit are only created to punish Homo sapiens for sin…errr…so it can be confidently inferred that the purpose of so-called evolution is to produce coruscating intellects such as myself. Phew! Done.”

Well, I’m obviously NEARLY convinced by this, but, given that the whole purpose of the Great Ladder of Creation is producing PBH and Borger and that the information is all there, why not skip a step or two? The foresight and powers of the system are obviously infinite, if not positively magical, so why have some poor dumb thing like Titaalik schlepping around on its stumpy fin/legs getting its lovely belly-scales all muddy when it must be well within the ability of the powers-that-be, (or the teleological mechanism or whatever) to leap straight from lobe-finny-things to amphibiany things??

Your essay is not without its points, and finesse. Add, why do we have droughts, and bills, and sick children, and dogs that bark all night, and crows that deliberately caw at 5am, and ingrown toenails, fermentation that causes intoxication, dandruff, childbirth, colic, nappies, the need to eat, the desire to overeat, the need to sleep, earthquakes, the need for clothing, the need for human company (just so a bloke can make a fool of himself with someone?) ...... on and on. Yeah. Nothing adds up, not with that adding machine.

Perhaps that's why we have religion, and it adds up there somewhere.

Beowulff: I'm not maths competent and I don't quite know what Henry's "fuzzy sets" implies. You may rest assured that if a species is used to establish a time surface in strata, it isn't in the process of outwardly changing into the species that is used to delineate the next time surface above it. But the fossils speak for themselves. That's not to say that all geologists have allowed them to speak.

Non-Overlapping Magisteria, Philip. Biology, economics and anthropology will give proximate causes for most of that list (dunno about sleep, though!) and it doesn't worry me if it's proximate causes all the way down, like the turtles.
Still, keep on truckin', eh?
Peace
DaveH

With fuzzy sets, the border between immediately neighboring sets is fuzzy. Think of ring species - close neighbors are clearly in the same species, yet the endpoints are not.

As for whether T Rex is fuzzy - I really don't want to get close enough to a live one to find out. (I'd presume a dead one would have lost its fuzz.)

Henry

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Beowulff: I'm not maths competent and I don't quite know what Henry's "fuzzy sets" implies. You may rest assured that if a species is used to establish a time surface in strata, it isn't in the process of outwardly changing into the species that is used to delineate the next time surface above it. But the fossils speak for themselves. That's not to say that all geologists have allowed them to speak.

Speaking of humans physically, they are defined as a species in the same way as other species, a topic already addressed, above.

Vertebrates are all but irrelevant to stratigraphy, and humans are totally irrelevant to it. Not enough fossils, not enough global spread. Time surfaces in strata are best delineated via organisms with global spread, abundant remains, frequent speciation. Plant spores/pollen, and planktonic foraminifera, are highly sought after. At a pinch, organisms such as brachiopods, trilobites, and ammonites are employed. Vertebrates need not exist, as far as geology is concerned.

But let us approach Homo sapiens from a geologic perspective. As I have mentioned above, species have to do first and foremost with reproductive integrity, and the biochemistry of sex cells and what have you is beginning to show how. Taking the Darwinistic approach: at some time in the past, Man arrived. It is self-evident that Man uses tools, in such a way as to leave trace fossils. Fragments of a broken stone tool would be a trace fossil. New York, depopulated, is another trace fossil.
Man, by definition, leaves abundant trace fossils in terms of fossil per year. In terms of the geologic time frame, he is like the atom bomb compared to a fire cracker, in terms of trace fossil output. There is nothing like him.

Taking Man's origin as the beginning of definite tool utilization - the beginning of human trace fossils - Man is Recent. Holocene, or whatever the term is. The trace fossils suggest he hasn't been long here at all.

His ape-like, supposed blood ancestors, from what scanty fossils exist, if they have indeed been dated correctly, are presumably mostly non-human. There is very little trace fossil support for the theory that Man has been here more than 6,000 odd years.
Individual ape-like fossils - ape-like or human?
It comes back to questions of reproduction. Forensic-style DNA study might eventually enable empirical classification of the pitifully few remains found so far? It will concur with the trace fossil evidence. The only way that Man can have been here much longer than 6,000 yrs, without contradicting geology, is for him to have been severely suppressed, early on. If he has been here for anything like the time attributed to him by Darwinism, he didn't explode into the fossil record as did most new species. New species tend to arrive a little like the forementioned atom bomb. They are everywhere, in full variety, in teeming abundance, all at once. They do not often begin gradually, then build.

Given Man's uniqueness, one supposes his arrival may have differed from that of other organisms in some ways: given that he is nevertheless an animal species, there are difficult questions to answer. One that we need not answer is whether or not he was ever anything other than human, a reproductive entity in his own right.

Nevermind, you're hopeless.

Actually, there is a discipline that has noticed these "trace fossils" of H sapiens. It's called archaeology. To avoid looking totally uneducated in future, read a book. I would suggest After the Ice, a global human history 20,000 - 5,000 BC by Steven Mithen. Weidenfeld & Nicolson ISBN 0 297 64318 5. Or if that's too technical, The Ladybird Book of the Olden Days.

I've read H.C. Andersen, especially the one about the Emperor with no Clothes. But do a simple calculation. I've done it for Australia, based on an indigenous population of only 1/4 million, each individual discarding one durable trace fossil such as a stone fragment, every 25yrs. Even on that conservative basis, the number of trace fossils in Australia indicates human habitation of less than 2,000 yrs.

Apply the same approach to, say, Nth America, and if Man was there for, say, 40,000 yrs, the ground should be covered in spear tips, axe fragments, bones and so on, at least ankle deep. Then go to the Middle East/Africa, or wherever one's home town is, and as likely as not you will find that if the story books are correct, one should be up to the waist in humanly manufactured objects.

One of the geology staff had a sticker on his car saying, "I don't have to prove a thing". I think it referred to the humble transporter. He left it on, by way of wry humour. Geology mightn't be as empirical as one might wish, but it's there for a reason.

The only way that Man can have been here much longer than 6,000 yrs, without contradicting geology, is for him to have been severely suppressed, early on.

So, why are you even here? To preach? To disrupt the discussion? I’m tempted to think the latter, since you’re trying to change the subject on us again with your often-debunked remark about fossils. I assume I shouldn’t expect a response to my challenge to define “human” either? Have you tried it? Have you even thought about the possible implications? Frankly, I’m doubting your sincerity, sir.

Mike Elzinga said: I’ve seen these characters in lots of places over the years. There were a few who used to show up regularly at physics seminars and colloquia and try to pontificate about physics and argue with the speaker. They were simply nut cases.

Philip Bruce Heywood said: I've read H.C. Andersen, especially the one about the Emperor with no Clothes. But do a simple calculation. I've done it for Australia, based on an indigenous population of only 1/4 million, each individual discarding one durable trace fossil such as a stone fragment, every 25yrs. Even on that conservative basis, the number of trace fossils in Australia indicates human habitation of less than 2,000 yrs.

Including Philip Bruce, after whom I am named. You could tell me that, and I'd believe you. I'll believe you about Australia, after you have lived in it, mapped it for the Geological Survey, logged its drill cores, dug hundreds of post holes, plowed it, talked to people who know the land, seen its artifacts. You could begin with that photograph of Mars, on a higher thread. That won't be alluvium you're looking at. To be reciprocal:Peace.

It has been an honour to be on this thread.

Also back on topic, about things that need to be changed in education and in our culture, check this comment on a thread about a teacher who had difficulty with students questioning her.

Also, this op-ed by Brian Greene in the NY times seems to echo my thoughts on this very nicely.