more on terminology
I can’t decide which sounds more idiotic, the title Of Pandas and People or the term "intelligent deign," but I’m thoroughly enjoying this whole evolution vs. creationism debate regardless. I find it especially amusing to observe diehard evolution supporters (and often heretics) adopt science as their religion. Personally, I think that this whole debate boils down to how “science” is defined and should be handed over to the linguists*. I believe that both creationism and evolution have no place in the biology classroom. Biology is the study of life: cells, DNA, reproduction, and living things that we can study through direct observation and experimentation; theories related to the origin of mankind and the universe not only lack scientific evidence, but are largely irrelevant when it comes to modern biology. And unless scientists plan to create their very own big bang (which would defy definition, since the basis of the big bang theory rests on spontaneity and the absence of a supreme being), perhaps they should just leave the question of how it all began to the philosophers.
*Richard Feynman offered a great definition of science saying that “Science is a belief in the ignorance of experts.”
posted by Goldie @ 6:37 PM
7 Comments:
Awsome post!
Comparative genomics: The study of human genetics by comparisons with model organisms such as mice, the fruit fly, and the bacterium E. coli.
Direct study of the evolution of species? I wouldn't say that...Direct study of similarities, yes. And since when does similarity imply a hereditary relationship? Material scientists have developed materials that have remarkable similarities to natural fibers, would that imply that these synthetic materials naturally evolved from the natural materials??
While we’re invoking the help of linguists, let’s get our terms straight. Creationism is not the same thing as “Intelligent Design”, religious kinship with their proponents notwithstanding. The newfangled term “Intelligent Design” was coined to distinguish themselves from their evangelical and scientifically ignorant brethren. More specifically, creationist literature is largely about the rejection of scientific findings that are discordant with the Bible; ID posits theories of its own, and is supposedly religiously neutral.
Neither biology, nor any science, is about “things that we can study through direct observation and experimentation”. That’s Natural History. (OK, I’m taking a very specific definition of the term). Science, for somebody who’s taken far too many science classes, is the “reasoned investigation or study of nature”, or formulating theories that explain the observations, and to predict future ones.
“theories related to the origin of mankind and the universe not only lack scientific evidence…”
That’s a pretty bold statement. In the unlikely event you have a rainy day during your vacation, check out .
“but are largely irrelevant when it comes to modern biology”
If by irrelevant you mean no practical application, have a look here
“since the basis of the big bang theory rests on spontaneity and the absence of a supreme being”
Wherever did you get that idea?
“perhaps they should just leave the question of how it all began to the philosophers”
Unlike philosophical ideas about nature, the beauty of scientific ones is that they explain why things are the way they are, and not any other.
I know I promised to take you to task on some of your previous statements, but I’m a little tired from my inadvertent fast. So for now, I will finish off with this proposal: as a Lubavitcher, evolution should be easily falsifiable. One only needs to show that lice can spontaneously generate, and you’ve completely destroyed any basis for common descent and the need for decent with modification. Let me know when your results are ready for publishing.
Not sure what happened in my previous post, so I'll post the link seperately:
29+ evidences for macroevolution.
"Material scientists have developed materials that have remarkable similarities to natural fibers, would that imply that these synthetic materials naturally evolved from the natural materials??"
OK, thats just egregious.
Uh oh. I think I provoked one of those afore mentioned die hard evolution supporters who is taking my gibberish way too seriously. An attempt to defend my only slightly informed rantings:
While were invoking the help of linguists, lets get our terms straight. Creationism is not the same thing as Intelligent Design
I am well aware. When did I say it was? (Although I’ve seen it used almost interchangeably…)
Biology -1 : a branch of knowledge that deals with living organisms and vital processes
2 a : the plant and animal life of a region or environment b : the life processes especially of an organism or group; broadly
Like I said, this is a debate for linguists….
Biology is not largely direct observation and experimentation?? I don’t know what sort of biology you studied, but my high school biology consisted of looking at cells with a microscope, memorizing vital organs and body parts, classifying different living organisms into various groups, the experimental crossing of fruit flies and plants to observe genetics, etc, etc.
I’m not sure Wikipedia can be quoted as a reliable source…so I won’t comment there.
evolution should be easily falsifiable
I am making no attempt to try and disprove the whole grandeur and elaborated "science" that it seems you've spent way too much of your time studying, but rather I am just giving my opinion on whether evolution and/or ID/creationism should be presented in the biology classroom. That is to say, all this hullabaloo is about what whether both concepts should be presented in public schools and "let the kids decide." Accordingly, I have come to my opinion after being presented with both as a high school student (well the evolution I learned on my own). My conclusion: from what is presented in the high school classroom, evolution seems to have very little, if any, clear scientific proof, and it doesn’t seem to fall in line with the rest of the standard high school biology curriculum consisting of largely observational facts. And besides, it's called the theory of evolution for a reason. If someone proved it one way or another, it wouldn't be called a theory, and this whole debate wouldn't be going on. I think by all means, if people think it’s worthwhile to dedicate their time trying to prove that people were once gorillas, they most definitely should, and I would not stand in their way, and they can even call it science. However, presenting an unproved theory as a scientific explanation for "how it all began" in my humble opinion is somewhat absurd. Why present one theory, and not another? That’s why I say, keep these highly controversial theories that are only scientific up to the “hypothesis” step out of the biology classroom. Or of course we can resort to reading this highly amusing preamble before teaching evolution:
Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence…Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view…As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.
I think it would be a more effective to offer an elective course called something like “Scientific Theories and the Controversy Surrounding Them.”
Dovid: thanks for the one comment in my favor.
Bullseye. A very wise post.
Post a Comment
<< Home