News: When Science Teachers Don't Believe In Evolution.
Ye Old One
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/when-science-teachers-don_b_370090.html
It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most
intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. – Charles Darwin
Last week, as I was driving a carload of middle-schoolers to a movie,
the kids started talking about their teachers. I couldn’t help
overhearing, “ . . . He’s a great science teacher, but he doesn’t
believe in evolution.” Two days later, a friend reported that his
15-year-old daughter had just returned from at a junior government
retreat. “They argued the pros and cons of teaching intelligent
design in schools, and she said there were some very compelling
arguments on the pro side.” When I repeated the story at the dinner
table later, my own daughter mentioned a schoolmate who feels
conflicted about his biology curriculum because his family doesn’t
believe in evolution.
Charles Darwin published his world-changing work, On the Origin of
Species, 150 years ago this week. What he proposed was breathtakingly
simple. It can be reduced to three parts: variability, heritability,
and differential survival. Variability means simply that creatures
are different from each other, even within a species. Heritability
means that those differences are in part handed down from parent to
child. Differential survival means that not all of us live to produce
the same number of offspring, and that those who have more offspring
are better represented in future generations. Once you concede these
three points, evolution becomes inevitable.
Even so, for 150 straight years, fearful Abrahamic literalists have
been trying to deny the facts about natural selection or at least to
keep them away from young minds. Reality threatens their belief that
the earth was created in six days and then re-created in an ancient
flood (young earth creationism), or their belief that it evolved but
was tweaked regularly according to some divine blueprint (intelligent
design). More to the point, reality threatens their belief that
we--stinky, mean, bipedal-primates-with-bad-backs who love and hate
and make cool stuff and then destroy it -- are the pinnacle of
creation and center of the universe.
Generations of scientists have subjected Darwin’s theory to tests that
weren’t possible back in 1859. These include computerized reassembly
of fossils, radio carbon dating, core samples of geological layers,
DNA sequencing, even laboratory experiments that create distinct
bacterial species out of a single ancestor. Mountains of evidence
have confirmed that, with some adjustments, Darwin was right. Today
our understanding of natural selection provides the foundation for the
life sciences – genetics, biology, biotechnology, medicine, animal
husbandry, and more.
And yet unbelievably, some religionists still labor to create the
illusion of confusion. Unfortunately, this forces them to cast
aspersions on the whole scientific enterprise. They love the fruits
of science in the form of mammography and cell phones and airplanes.
But they reject the obligations of the scientific method, which say
that before making truth claims you must ask the questions that could
show you wrong. And they are deeply suspicious of scientists
themselves. (Why would scientists keep getting the answers so wrong
unless they were deliberately trying to undermine faith?) Oh what a
tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive [ourselves].
If nothing else, creationist efforts to undermine science and science
education should teach us something about our species, about our
impressive capacity for delusion. Given enough motivation and
community support, we humans seem to have an almost boundless ability
to cling to a story regardless of the evidence. Without religion,
there would be no such thing as a good science teacher who “doesn’t
believe in evolution.” But given the right ideological filter, this
paradoxical teacher becomes perfectly possible.
We all are prone to “confirmation bias” which is a tendency to seek
information in support of what we already believe, disregarding any
contradictions. Religious orthodoxy over the centuries has refined
confirmation bias into an art form called “apologetics.” Apologists
start with a set of handed down conclusions and then reason backwards
from there, drawing in logic and evidence only as these support their
foregone conclusion.
These people, in my mind, worship an idol with clay feet. They don’t
worship a Power that is actually great enough to create the
intricacies of the natural world, but rather a golden calf called the
inerrant Bible or the inerrant Koran. (Call it bibliolatry—text
worship. In an age of widespread literacy and printing presses, what
better golden calf than a literally perfect book?) They don’t trust
that all truth is God’s truth, and that nature really does have
something to say about her creator. They minimize the fallibility of
our ancestors who wrote and assembled our sacred texts and church
leaders who interpret them. Consequently, they don’t see that they
have made a god in the image of man.
When it comes to Darwin’s theory, some of the most sophisticated
apologists in the country are housed in a Seattle institution called
the Discovery Institute. They use the language of science to
undermine the work of science. That may be why, in one of the most
secular parts of the country, we can find teachers who think that
disbelief in evolution is somehow compatible with the obligations of
the scientific process.
The creationists will be shown to be on the wrong side of history, but
in the meantime, they have the power to do serious harm. In the
service of their idol, they undermine the cutting edge education and
research that have let us attain our current cultural/technological
nexus. In doing so they also undermine our ability to innovate and
solve the great challenges we now face: climate change, population
pressures, weapons of mass destruction, and resource depletion.
When Darwin first noticed evolution, it flew in the face of everything
he, as a Christian, had been raised to believe. It flew in the face
of his theological training. It flew in the face of his beloved wife
Emma’s devout faith. And so, working almost alone, he spent twenty
painstaking years assembling logic and evidence before he finally went
public with his suspicions. Through all that time, he had the
integrity to follow the evidence where it might lead and ultimately
the courage to challenge the apologists. Those of us who care about
the future of our species cannot afford to do any less.
--
Bob.
All-Seeing-I
>
> We all are prone to “confirmation bias” which is a tendency to seek
> information in support of what we already believe, disregarding any
> contradictions.
Which is exactly what you evo-freaks have been doing for the last 150
years.
how about THAT
Steven L.
So people should worship a Power that was "great enough to create the
intricacies of the natural world," but which was powerless to affect the
course of events after life began on Earth? God created the Universe
and then went into retirement?
Deism like this fell out of favor in America a long time ago. I'm still
a Deist, but then I don't expect anything from God--not in this life,
anyway.
Most people do expect something from God--to heal the sick, reward the
pious, and punish the wicked. Evolution suggests (though it doesn't
prove) that the world rolls along without any divine intervention. That
frightens people. Even Carl Sagan admitted, "We wonder about our
futures, if we have no one but ourselves to rely on."
The kind of "God" suggested by evolution ends up looking like Deism plus
a very few isolated miracles here and there throughout human history,
some involving a fellow named Jesus; miracles that the Vatican keeps a
list of. That's not enough for most people.
In the Bible, God was constantly intervening in human history. That's
the God most people want to believe in.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Davej
Ooh, I think Jesus has just appeared in another grilled cheese
sandwich. You better rush off and join the gathering throng who are
worshiping it.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:1igvg5h5tn171mfec...@4ax.com...
When Science Teachers Don't Believe In Evolution
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/when-science-teachers-don_b_370090.html
It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most
intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. - Charles Darwin
life sciences - genetics, biology, biotechnology, medicine, animal
husbandry, and more.
inerrant Bible or the inerrant Koran. (Call it bibliolatry-text
worship. In an age of widespread literacy and printing presses, what
better golden calf than a literally perfect book?) They don't trust
that all truth is God's truth, and that nature really does have
something to say about her creator. They minimize the fallibility of
our ancestors who wrote and assembled our sacred texts and church
leaders who interpret them. Consequently, they don't see that they
have made a god in the image of man.
****************************
I would go further:
It is not the bible they deify, it is their own "self".
They edit, warp, distort, shorten and add to the bible however and whenever
they need to - to fit their own (personal and group) needs.
In a way, what makes it dangerous is "like-mindedness". Even if tyhey are
totally wrong and/or totally insane - their own "like mindedness" convinces
them they are right (and god agrees with them), and everyone else is not
only wrong - but (with full blown paranoia) a danger to them.
(Ronald Reagan's "Grenada", and George Bush/Dick Cheny's "Iraq" are examples
of the same type of thinking in the political arena.)
The greatest danger here is that we have a relatively sane, and peaceful,
"background" society - and they are being attacked by a foaming at the
mouth, fanatical, paranoid, mentally delusional, and active pack of wolves.
No - this is NOT "the Talibal/al Qaeda vs the United States" - it is (a not
unfamiliar) insane wolves (the fanatical right wing politician AND
christian) vs sane, democracy loving, Americans.
*******************************************
bpuharic
really? rather strange in that scientists of all religoius beliefs
accept evolution
but only fundies are creationists.
Desertphile
wrote:
> When Science Teachers Don't Believe In Evolution
Nor should they.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
John Stockwell
Science isn't a belief system, it is a a collection of methods of
investigation. That
investigation has led us to a broad understanding of biology in part
through
the application of evolution. Deniers do nothing by deny.
-John
John Wilkins
<"Pepsi...@teranews.com"> wrote:
> "Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
> news:1igvg5h5tn171mfec...@4ax.com...
> When Science Teachers Don't Believe In Evolution
>
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/when-science-teachers-don_b_37009
> 0.html
>
> It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most
> intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. - Charles Darwin
Darwin never said that. Go to the Darwin Archive and you'll find a note
("Things Darwin never said").
Bob T.
> In article <SjSPm.75556$Xf2.31...@newsfe12.iad>,
>
> <"PepsiFr...@teranews.com"> wrote:
> > "Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
> >news:1igvg5h5tn171mfec...@4ax.com...
> > When Science Teachers Don't Believe In Evolution
>
> > 0.html
>
> > It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most
> > intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. - Charles Darwin
>
> Darwin never said that. Go to the Darwin Archive and you'll find a note
> ("Things Darwin never said").
Is that list complete? I've long wondered if Darwin ever called
anyone a snotty-nosed heap of parrot droppings, or threatened to fart
in anyone's general direction. It would be nice to have someplace to
look that up.
- Bob T.
- Bob T.
Sapient Fridge
<a7402164-40e2-4ae7...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> writes
Yet you can't find any of these supposed contradictions to post here can
you? Why is that?
Like all creationists all you can do is claim that problems with the ToE
exist, but as soon as you're asked to support your assertions with
evidence or reasoning you either post something which is quickly shown
to be false (usually either a lie, a strawman or simply ignorance as to
how evolution works) or you abandon the thread.
Even after searching for years you can't find a single piece of evidence
against the theory of evolution that stands up to scrutiny. Nothing,
zilch, nada.
In the meantime you also haven't found the slightest shred of evidence
to support creationism, or even the existence of a god. Nothing,
zilch, nada. Again.
When will you realise what this means?
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Burkhard
> In article <SjSPm.75556$Xf2.31...@newsfe12.iad>,
>
> > "Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
> >news:1igvg5h5tn171mfec...@4ax.com...
> > When Science Teachers Don't Believe In Evolution
>
> > 0.html
>
> > It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most
> > intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. - Charles Darwin
>
> Darwin never said that. Go to the Darwin Archive and you'll find a note
> ("Things Darwin never said").
>
>
>
TomS
<281120091458128361%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John Wilkins stated..."[...snip...]
>> It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most
>> intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. - Charles Darwin
>
>Darwin never said that. Go to the Darwin Archive and you'll find a note
>("Things Darwin never said").
And that points to this blog entry at the Panda's Thumb by Nick
Matzke who identified the origin of the quotation:
<http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/09/survival-of-the-1.html>
Should anyone be interested, there is an entry on Wikiquote for
"Notable Charles Darwin misquotes":
<http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Notable_Charles_Darwin_misquotes>
(BTW, that web page is restricted to the *notable*, and to the
*misquotes*, not just to all of the things that CD never said,
or wrote. One should not expect to find "Ich bin ein Berliner.")
(BTW2, I see that the web page is marked with a notice that it
should be merged with the entry "Charles Darwin", so it might
disappear at any moment.)
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Kent Paul Dolan
> In the Bible, God was constantly intervening in
> human history. That's the God most people want to
> believe in.
And that is the god whose complete absence at the
"intervening in human history" level (not at all the
same thing as a stray healing "miracle" claimed
here and there) in post-biblical times makes people
suspicious that "God" was just an excuse the Hebrews
gave for all the attrocities of whose doing they
bragged, and still has the same use today.
What is a bit astonishing to a non-believer is why
anyone would attempt to defend the current existence
of such a deity.
xanthian.
Glenn
> When Science Teachers Don't Believe In Evolution
>
>
snip article
>
I'm sure Arianna would be pleased to hear that articles are being
taken over to talk.origins to be read and discussed there, archived at
Google, instead of at her commercialized site.
Copyright � 2009 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terms.html
chris thompson
The pertinent section:
"4. Your Use of Our Content is Restricted:
(a) Unless expressly permitted, you may not copy, reproduce,
distribute, publish, enter into a database, display, perform, modify,
create derivative works from, transmit or in any way exploit any part
of our site or any content thereon, except as permitted under the last
sentence of this Section 4(a) and except that you may make one print
copy that is limited to occasional articles of personal interest only.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing (but subject to the
last sentence of this Section 4(a)), you may not distribute any part
of this site or any content thereon over any network, including,
without limitation, a local area network, or sell or offer it for
sale. In addition, these files may not be used to construct any kind
of database. Just as we from time to time excerpt materials from other
sources in order to support the various commentaries and writings
contained herein, we respect the right of others to make �fair use� of
the materials contained on our site; accordingly, you may from time to
time excerpt and use materials set forth on this site consistent with
the principles of �fair use�."
(Since I excerpted material, I expect my quote falls under 'fair
use'.)
Chris
g...@risky-biz.com
> On Nov 27, 6:13�am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > We all are prone to �confirmation bias� which is a tendency to seek
> > information in support of what we already believe, disregarding any
>
> Which is exactly what you evo-freaks have been doing for the last 150
> years.
By "evo-freaks", you of course mean "biologists".
> how about THAT
This is what comes from studiously avoiding any specifics. In the
absence of any details, we are left with ASI's mantra; if there is
more than one "interpretation", each is equally valid.
But modern science has been quite productive using the principle that
we *can* in fact decide which interpretations best fit the
observations. This usually involves lots of meticulous detail. Not
surprisingly, those who are the least knowledgeable about the details
are the ones most likely to dispute the conclusions.
Greg Guarino
bpuharic
<g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
>On Nov 27, 10:00�am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 27, 6:13�am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > We all are prone to �confirmation bias� which is a tendency to seek
>> > information in support of what we already believe, disregarding any
>> > contradictions. �
>>
>> Which is exactly what you evo-freaks have been doing for the last 150
>> years.
>
>By "evo-freaks", you of course mean "biologists".
>
>> how about THAT
>
>This is what comes from studiously avoiding any specifics. In the
>absence of any details, we are left with ASI's mantra; if there is
>more than one "interpretation", each is equally valid.
>
>But modern science has been quite productive using the principle that
>we *can* in fact decide which interpretations best fit the
>observations
creationism is a failure because it has no way to disprove ideas. it
simply asserts that what it defines as true is true.
science does not have that luxury. in fact, it's why science is more
successful than religion at explaining nature. most ideas are wrong.
science is the method that helps us to tell which ideas are wrong
creationism can't do this.
that's a reason its' a failure
teresita
> What is a bit astonishing to a non-believer is why anyone would attempt
> to defend the current existence of such a deity.
Especially after the holocaust. If he didn't intervene for his "chosen
people" then, when they really needed it, then he becomes
indistinguishable from a god that does not exist.
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
bpuharic
>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:37:46 -0700, Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
>
>> What is a bit astonishing to a non-believer is why anyone would attempt
>> to defend the current existence of such a deity.
>
>Especially after the holocaust. If he didn't intervene for his "chosen
>people" then, when they really needed it, then he becomes
>indistinguishable from a god that does not exist.
and slavery. about 2,000,000 black human beings died in the holocaust
of christian practiced slavery...justified in ephesians 6:5, the book
of philemon etc.
it's THESE challenges to xtianity, NOT evolution, which is the problem
for god.