Evolution?

SMunsey, you pose a provocative question. Thank you. Too few of them these days. In light of the recent wrangling over this question it would be very interesting to get a diverse collection of opinions on the subject. Most telling would be how many really understand the princple involved. To that extent, I must confess I have never read Darwin's treatise but I would bet dollars against the proverbial donuts most people have a very flawed understanding of the theory.

To me, one only needs to look at Colonial Williamsburg and see how short our ancestors were a mere 200 years ago. We have evolved into taller people today. I think the close minded hysterics in the church leapt at the potential connection between apes and humans and that was as far as they got. I really don't think they know what they are talking about.

Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

Smuncey,

Timely subject, dude.  Very timely.  I'll give my opinion to you but I feel I must warn you first.  Grab a seat.  Lite 'em if you got 'em.  Pour yourself your favorite beverage because I'm going to shock again.  First, I defended churches against the NFL.  Then, I defended one of your replies in a previous blog to the point that the blogger apologised.  Speaking of, I still haven't got my fee for that one.  Then, a few blogs back, I said that I would vote for a certain conservative Republican.  OK.  Here it comes.  I do NOT think evolution should be taught as fact.  But a caveat comes with that.

Evolution, is now & always has been called & treated as a theory, in spite of what some yahoos yell at the top of their lungs.  Science has always been in the forefront to say that there are, indeed gaps & that there are things they could not explain...yet.  But, & it's a very large but, unlike any other explanation, it is backed with mountains of facts, statistics, research, review, critical testing by literally dozens of scientific disciplines & has, as it has always proclaimed, a self correcting mechanism in case new evidence is found or new technology comes into the picture.  That is something the other endevors can't provide.

It also has a few other things the others don't have.  It does not have the wish to impose its views on others.  You may either accept it or not, as you please.  It does not have the wish to restrict the views of others.  Science doesn't care what you believe or not believe.  It's none of their business & not what they get paid for.  (A lesson & attitude more organisations could use) And here's the biggie. It does not attempt to scare the whositz out of anybody by threatening some form of punishment after death if people don't accept their views.  That is something else the others can't provide.

Almost every religious belief has their own orthodox beliefs of how things got started.  Some even have those beliefs in writing. To that, I say, that's nice, show me the money.  Because as we all know that money talks, not walks, & that's what counts. 

I can't accept your philosophy @ not teaching evolution at all until it is a proven as fact.  To what end?  The complete stopage of the search for knowlege?  The science grades in this country are bad enough & even worse in Florida.  Also, if, as a society, we took on your criteria, religious beliefs, by the  very nature of being only a belief, would be banned from being taught.  Also, creationism is not a theory.  Not my definition pal.  The dictionary says so & so do the people who claim & protect it as a BELIEF, & nothing more.  When you start to gather factual evidense to support your claim, go through the same processes that science employs, then & only then can one start to think of it as a theory.  Just a little food for thought.  JATFUR.

Make it a scientific day!

RichK

smunsey and lilyslore,

I believe the real danger is in censoring information we provide for students (and no, I'm not advocating exposure to lewd materials) but it's like the chicken and the egg. Which came first and where does it stop? Evolution? Alien beings? Why can't it all be presented as possibilities without a judgment placed on top? (That sounds pretty liberal, even to me but I guess I have confidence that some information rings true and resonates stronger than information that holds less truth.) There's plenty of other information presented to students that's not "proven": music theory, art, political science and dance are a few that come to mind.

I'll have to think about it...Great question, smunsey.

Thank you for the input fellow bloggers.  It just seems to me that only Science Facts should be taught in public schools not Science Fiction. Evolution is just a theory with huge gaping holes.  I dont beleive children under the age of 18 should be forced by the state to be taught 'theories', save that for the college level.  One more question "How will teaching Evolution in the public schools help Florida get a better grade in Science?"  Florida is currently rated a F in Science, but teahing Evolution will dramatically increase that grade?  I think not........ 

Steven P Munsey A+, MCP, IASO Orange Park | Green Cove Springs munsey13@comcast.net

You don't think creationism borders on science fiction? We shouldn't teach any theories at all? How about the theory of flight? 

Mike Heemer

Smuncey,

It would benefit all of us if you could provide the "Huge," gaping holes.  Personally, I am curious @ that since I have never heard that term attached to the self confessed holes that science itself has pointed out, not even by the religious right.  Thanks ever so much.

I also can't agree with your age limitations on learning.  I remember being taught theories since grammar school.  Granted, it was geared for the grade school intellect & ability, but the fact that we were taught that there were things called theories, hypotheses, the difference between them & such, only added to the learning experience.

In answer to your question, teaching evolution will do a # of things.  First & foremost is the most obvious.  It opens up a new branch of knowlege to a student to broaden their minds much like history, geography, logic etc.  Added to that, it teaches an orderly, disciplined, systematic way of learning, classification, research, verification to mention a few.  With this type of knowlege in this particular subject, if a student wishes to on to an institute of higher learning, he, or she, will not have to worry that the lack of this type of education will hinder them in  being qualified to enter that kind of instituion.  That has been said many times. 

Please don't get me wrong.  I am not against teaching biblical creationism, intelligent design or whatever else you may want to call it.  But they have no place in science.  On the contrary, those ARE being taught in religion classes, comparative religion classes & mythology classes & rightly so.

I don't recall anyone saying that learning evolution will "dramatically," increase any grades, so if you could provide the source for your statement, it would naturally be appreciated.  But let's say it doesn't "dramatically," increase anything for the sake of arguement.  I think that even you would have to admit that ANY increase in science standards & grades would help to raise the dismal reports of an "F" in Florida.  The time has come when education professionals & all Floridians to realise that by retarding the educational standards in Florida by keeping them to 1950's standards (and that was a shame, even back then) they are not only doing students a tremendous disservice, but are also keeping Florida in at best, a third rate rate position instead of allowing them to compete with the rest of the country & the world.  Just a little more food for thought.  Chew carefully.  JATFUR.

RichK

PS.  On the value of a good education, it's i, before e, except after c.  It's spelled BELIEVE.  My family & my schooling told me that I could find neat stuff like that in a dictionary.  Sorry, I couldn't resist getting one in for education.  Toodles.

RK

If theories were never studied, where would we be as a species? 

Personal beliefs aside I am happy with the decision that has been made.  A theory not represented as fact is the right way to go and as much as I have been saddened about the numerous assaults that have been lodged against God in this country I do believe "Creationism" is not Science and has no place in a Science Class.  Perhaps the debate over all this should be put into the history books.

Fellow bloggers,

I just sent a letter to the editor of the TU on this subject & thought I would include it on the blog.  The letter is as follows.

What have we learned about the “Floridian,” way now that the smoke has started to clear over the evolution question?  Plenty, in my estimation.

We have learned that in spite of overwhelming opposition, the State Board of Education took a tiny, baby step, to say what the rest of the world recognizes as totally obvious.  Evolution is a theory supported by mountains of facts.  Plain & simple.  Will it bring the State of Florida into the 21st century?  Will it help to improve the “F” grade Florida holds in national ranking?  Will it ultimately be of benefit to the current & future students of Florida?  Only time will tell for sure.  One thing that can be definitely said is that it will surely not hurt.

We have learned the State of Florida, obviously, with clear documentation, behind the intellectual pace of the rest of the world, has been mired in the slavish and dangerous mindset of showing deference, not respect to, Christian evangelicals, in spite of all of the historical evidence showing this as folly.  I say, “Christian evangelicals,” because in all the reports from the Times Union & other publications, the absence of opposition from any other religious group was conspicuously absent.

I use the term, “deference,” on purpose.  Respect for the religious views of others was not on display.  While any person or group of persons certainly has the right to voice their opposition, reasons for opposition were given as, “they believe it conflicts with the biblical account of creation,” “Yes, we have to be sensitive to religious beliefs…,” “should help soften the blow for students who are offended by the teaching of evolution,” and “charging that the revision had been made to “placate” people who disagreed with the standards.”

Given the above reasons, I find not one shred of respect, neither for religion nor for, and especially, intellectual integrity. 

During the periods of being a student, and then beyond, into the real world of working with others & possibly extended education, are these same people supposed to be deferred to simply because something might be in opposition to their religious beliefs?  Where is it written that society is charged with hiding factual information in order to placate these people?  Are their religious beliefs so tenuous & fragile that opposing thought, theories & facts pose such a great threat?  If they are, these people have much larger issues to deal with than mere wording can solve. But again, time will tell if we have learned anything of real value.

RichK

Yes, evolution needs to be taught in schools. My son wants to be a scientist, a zoologist, no less, and it would be nice if he heard about it some time before he hits college. It's an accepted fact in the scientific community- hate to hurt anyone's feelings out there, but it is. It's the HOW of evolution that is a scientific theory, not the whether.

The first thing I learned in science class ages ago, which many people seem to forget, is that once a hypothesis is tested and accepted, it is considered a "theory." If it "grows up," it becomes a law, I suppose:) Using "theory" in the non-scientific sense as in "I have a theory about who ate all the chocolate cake," muddies the waters, but it's completely different in the science world. A fact, as I understand it, is merely an observation - the ball bounced when I dropped it. "Fact" is not mentioned in the new science standards regarding evolution BTW. Evolution is referred to as "the underlying concept," which to me is a fair description.

I've been following this one very carefully lately and here's what I've found:

The new science standards which now refer to "The scientific Theory of Evolution" should be no threat to the scientists who want to see real science taught in the classroom. One concern, however, is that people will apply the common meaning rather than the scientific one, as in "I'm so relieved that they'r only teaching it as a theory." If you're relieved, you don't want it taught as a theory; you want it taught as a hypothesis.

Another concern is that reading that evolution is a "just a theory" will allow people whose religion does not allow them to study science if it contradicts a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible to try to bring in other "theories." Or, as I heard a gentleman named Sternberg say on the radio this morning, they will bring in the idea that by teaching only evolution and not presenting its "opposition," (you interpret that as freeely as you like) then we are stifling "academic freedom" and teaching evolution as "dogma" -- you like that one? equating the science in evolution with religion? that's fantastic.

Watch for legislation advocating "academic freedom" -- it's coming. It's a brilliant move - how can you be against FREEDOM? <gasp> But what we're talking about here is providing school teachers with psuedoscientific texts to "debate" evolution. If you haven't watched the Nova episode about the intelligent design/ creationism court case in Dover, it's pretty eye opening.

And the thing that really kills me is that there is absolutely NO reason that religious people need to be afraid of evolution. There is no reason to believe that if I accept and understand evolution, then I can't believe in God.  Even Pope John Paul said so ages ago. Scores, hundreds, I don't know how many, ministers have said so in the Clergy Letter Project. Jeeesh. Can we let my son learn the real science and get on with our lives? Please?

Okay, that was my rant for the day.

NCLB: No Chocolate Left Behind

Oh, and the gaping hole thing is straight from the antiscience Discovery Institute crib notes, often delivered to the unsuspecting from a pulpit; it is not from scientists in the biological sciences. If you want to tell me about those, find me an actual biologist. And don't bring me the Dissent from Darwin list. That list consists of (1) people who don't study biology or evolution - say nutritionists - and count themselves as qualified to speak to the subject, (2) have been placed on the list without their consent (3) have been unable to complete any peer reviewed articles to justify their "dissent." Every biology colleague I have spoken to says that evolution is not a controversy within the scientific world doing real science. Just the political world doing, well, what it does.

Besides, even if all 700 were completely up and up, it would make up somewhere around .14% of the science community. I could probably find the same percentage of any population who would tell me my hair is green and purple.

NCLB: No Chocolate Left Behind

3CK,

Thanks for the input.  There is more at stake here than many people realise.

Part of what you said goes hand in hand with the title of Marsha's blog @ misinformation.  I know that I'll catch a bit of hell from the religious right, but so be it.  Whether it's evolution/creationism, the war on Christianity, the war on Christmas or the war on god, one can always put money on segments of the religious right to misinform, produce disinformation, obfuscate & fabricate.  If you put a bet on, you'll get a fortune back.  I'll be more than happy to provide examples if some wish to challenge. I won't even bother to use what some may call a source that is not fair & balanced, left wing, godless or Democrat.  I'll be more than happy to provide material from the religious right.

If you can't tell, I've got a bit of steam under my collar & in my shorts.  I got an e mail from a friend of mine back in Illinois.  On one of the news wires he reads, he came across our little melodrama on evolution.  He asked me if "THOSE," people were actually serious, meaning the Christian evangelicals.  He asked just what the hell they had to say @ anything in a science curriculum.  It's none of their business as they were in no way qualified to comment on the scientific basis of the theory.  Then he dropped the bomb on me & asked, "Just what the hell kind of state are you living in?  Nice weather in the winter is no reason to be living in the middle of that kind of Neanderathal thinking processes.  Don't they realise that this is the 21st century?"

I doubt that I was convincing, but I tried to explain, not defend, the atmosphere of Florida & parts of the South.  I have to admit that I did it in a half hearted manner, knowing the facts of the situation.  At least the rest of my day went better.  He did, at least, offer to get me a good real estate agent in case I wanted to move back to "A civilized, intelligent area before the "inquisition" was reintroduced."  I just didn't know how to answer him.  Damn shame.

RichK

Blast off is right. When my lovely bride saw the beginning of this saga on the news I thought I was going to have to peel her off the ceiling.

Her statement was "What the hell kind of state did you move me to?" Then it got REALLY interesting. I had lived in Florida for 8 years while I was in the Navy. That was in a different life so she had never lived here or dealt with the religious right. It was not pretty. She felt that I should have warned her. OOPS!

Will teaching the Scientific Theory (insert sneer here) of Evolution make any BIG changes? I don't know but it will at least be different and have a chance of shaking things up. Whatever it is that we are doing now is just not working.

I happened to do a 'Google' on 'list of scientific theories'. It is simply amazing the list of things that we take for granted today that were nothing but theories being studied and tested in our own lifetime. How many of these would not have come to fruition if we lived by the 'theory' that no one under 18 should be taught any theories.

I think even the cave man would agree that the nut who thought he could produce fire by rubbing two sticks together did a good thing. I'll bet the he wasn't told he had to wait till he was 18 to try that. 

Mike Heemer

Mike,

Thanks for injectiong a bit of humor into this.  I needed that after e mailing with my friend.  I have to admit that it was rather depressing.  But I am a firm advocate that the best person to ask of any opinion is the neutral, disinterested third party who has no stake in the opinion.  Sometimes, you might not like the answer.  But at least you can rely on the honesty & integrity of the person.  Oh happy day!  JATFUR.

RichK