Creation vs. Evolution

[gary-ramey]

He's desperate to prove abiogenesis impossible, so he's hooked onto a decades-old piece of science, while ignoring everything that came from the foundation Miller built.

You're missing the point here. The Miller Experiment is being taught in schools as the foundation for biogenesis/evolution despite its irrelevance to those today.

 

[sheck33]

Then go read his response and understand that the Miller Experiment isn't valid anymore. First the atmosphere Miller used has been discredited. Secondly, even subsequent experiments which corrected the atmosphere yeilded nothing more than formaldehyde and cyanide (organic molecules). Furthermore, even if you had the correct protein molecules you still don't come close to the simplest lifeform. You can take a living cell today, puncture it and empty its contents into a sterile saline solution. You have all the ingredients...but you don't have life. Quite frankly there's nothing you can do to those contents to "breathe" life into them either.

I read the response. Yes new evidence and/or results have come forth. That is how science works. The fact that some results have to be discarded or modified in light of new ones does not make an experiment a 'fable'. The beginnings are there. But you can't expect the exact same results considering Nature had hundreds of millions of years to 'play around'.

The law of gravity might not be applicable beyond certain boundaries but hey, it does a damn good job within these boundary conditions doesn't it. The law of gravity is, according to your logic, also a fable then, since we have general relativity now.

And once again, do you have a scientific alternative? No, you don't. 'God did it' is not an alternative.

 

[sheck33]

So presenting creationism in the classroom with equal time might threaten evolution? But I thought evolution was indisputable.

No, I am not in the least bit afraid creationism will threaten evolution theory in any way.
Considering the body of evidence that supports evolution theory, that is not an issue.
But presenting creationism in a classroom will be detrimental to the development of
logical reasoning and simple scientific honesty. Promoting creationism undermines good education, simple as that.

 

[Thalassamania]

I just spilled my coffee after reading that. Unfortunately, I don't know how many others will grasp this little gem.

Just planting a mole on his side of the fence.

 

[Thalassamania]

So presenting creationism in the classroom with equal time might threaten evolution? But I thought evolution was indisputable.

It is, so is the current model of the solar system. Believe me, I'd be equally opposed to teaching that everything revolves around the earth.

It's shorter than proponents of evolution and more accurate than Darwinists. Take your argument about abiogenesis up with your contemporaries, like Gould, who obviously disagree with you.

Steve died back on 20 May 2002, so It'd be a bit hard to "take it up with him." I guess you missed the news, you really don't see, to be up to date on anything ... not science in general, not the Miller Experiment, not evolutionary theory, not genetics, not even your nemesis' death.

Oh ... by the way, we're all still waiting for one teeny-weenie example. Can't find one, can you?

Maybe I should have put the word "naturally occurring" in there. In a closed-loop system where you control all the variables, I'm sure there are quite a few possibilities.

Or,l just maybe you should have quit before revealing that there was another field that you knew nothing about.

 

[adurso]

You're missing the point here. The Miller Experiment is being taught in schools as the foundation for biogenesis/evolution despite its irrelevance to those today.

What schools would be doing this? I would like to examine their curricula.

 

[Thalassamania]

What schools would be doing this? I would like to examine their curricula.

I suppose it's the 16% of "science" teachers who self-identify as creationists (I guess it's good that they're considerably more knowledgeable than the general public). Link

To quote from the study:

"These findings strongly suggest that victory in the courts is not enough for the scientific community to ensure that evolution is included in high school science courses. Nor is success in persuading states to adopt rigorous content standards consistent with recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences and other scientific organizations. Scientists concerned about the quality of evolution instruction might have a bigger impact in the classroom by focusing on the certification standards for high school biology teachers. Our study suggests that requiring all teachers to complete a course in evolutionary biology would have a substantial impact on the emphasis on evolution and its centrality in high school biology courses. In the long run, the impact of such a change could have a more far reaching effect than the victories in courts and in state governments."
​

I wonder how many of that 16% are "well qualified" and credentialed teachers and how many are just, well ... hacks, who were assigned to teach a science class, but who had no more preparation in biology, science or evolution than some of my opposition posters on the board here. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the data comparing "well qualified" and "unqualified" science teachers.

Interesting PDF here.

 

[Sordello]

You're missing the point here. The Miller Experiment is being taught in schools as the foundation for biogenesis/evolution despite its irrelevance to those today.

Yes, and we also teach Newton. even though he was wrong - he led the way to new discoveries!

 

[Sordello]

You're missing the point here. The Miller Experiment is being taught in schools as the foundation for biogenesis/evolution despite its irrelevance to those today.

Yes, and we also teach Newton. even though he was wrong - he led the way to new discoveries in physics.

 

[adurso]

I suppose it's the 16% of "science" teachers who self-identify as creationists (I guess it's good that they're considerably more knowledgeable than the general public). Link

To quote from the study:

"These findings strongly suggest that victory in the courts is not enough for the scientific community to ensure that evolution is included in high school science courses. Nor is success in persuading states to adopt rigorous content standards consistent with recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences and other scientific organizations. Scientists concerned about the quality of evolution instruction might have a bigger impact in the classroom by focusing on the certification standards for high school biology teachers. Our study suggests that requiring all teachers to complete a course in evolutionary biology would have a substantial impact on the emphasis on evolution and its centrality in high school biology courses. In the long run, the impact of such a change could have a more far reaching effect than the victories in courts and in state governments."
​

I wonder how many of that 16% are "well qualified" and credentialed teachers and how many are just, well ... hacks, who were assigned to teach a science class, but who had no more preparation in biology, science or evolution than some of my opposition posters on the board here. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the data comparing "well qualified" and "unqualified" science teachers.

Interesting PDF here.

I remember the Dover case very well. One unintended consquence of the No Child Left Behind mess is the verbage "highly qualified", with definitions. This begins to preclude the hacks assigned to science classrooms. Though I must include a side note of an instructor who asked my "opinion" on the percentage of oxygen present in the atmosphere. I asked this instructor what their "opinion" was and was impressed to learn that we are breathing 23 percent oxygen. I offered to free up the instructor's future should they not avail themselves of some continuing education opportunities......

I express interest in the poster's knowledge of what is taught where and how it is taught as part of the on-going evaluation of my system in comparison with other systems. I would also appreciate his input as to which texts use this incorrect information so that we may avoid them...