Good article on evolution and ID/creationism in Toronto Star

[grmcdorman]

On web site thestar dot com, article/198318 [can't post links yet].

It pretty clearly supports evolution as science (and ID/creationism as not science). Some quotes:

Alters warns that the danger of creationist theories such as intelligent design is that whenever something can't be explained scientifically, it is credited to divine intervention – which he says effectively shuts down further inquiry, the underpinning of good science.

"It's only controversial outside of the scientific community. Inside the scientific community, there's no controversy," Alters says.

(Alters is Brian Alters, director of the Evolution Education Research Centre at McGill University.)

The Dover, Pa. court case is cited, including quotes from Kent Hovind, as examples of what's happening in the U.S. No mention of his father's legal troubles, which is probably just as well (in the context of the article, that'd be an ad hominen attack, I think).

Pretty good article, on balance, in my opinion at least.

 

[nw843x]

http://www.thestar.com/article/198318

Enjoy !!

 

[grmcdorman]

[linkey]

Enjoy !!

Thanks, nw843x.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

I really liked this nutshell statement:

"You can't teach biology without teaching the one thing that unifies the whole discipline."

And I find this completely frightening:

"To me the much better approach is don't mention creation, don't mention evolution, don't mention intelligent design," Hovind told the AgapePress, the news service of the American Family Association. "If all the lies are taken out of the textbooks, there will be nothing left to support the evolution theory."

 

[grmcdorman]

Yes, absolutely, Miss Anthrope. To me, gutting science teaching like that will, at best, weaken the students' ability to think logically; at worst, they end up accepting arguments from authority (which is basically what Creationism/ID is, with the Bible being the authority).

T'm thinking of sending the The Star a comment lauding the article, and will point to talkdesigns dot org as a good place to look for material refuting Creationist/ID arguments. (That is the major repository for such material, no?)

 

[Tumblehome]

I like the title of the article: "Creationism debate continues to evolve".

I agree with and share Alters' concern, and it's good to see him bringing to the public's attention, but I have to take exception to this comment in the article:

Alters warns that north of the border the encroachment of creationism is much more stealth. It begins, he says, with the general absence of evolution from provincial curriculum until Grade 12 – and then only for students who take biology.

Well, where else are you going to teach evolution? In English or math?

Having said that, I realize this is turning into a war and more extreme measures might have to be taken, like using evolution-based examples to solve math problems, or some such thing.

 

[grmcdorman]

Mail sent to article author

I've sent an e-mail to the author of the article:

Thank you for a good article on this topic; it's nice to see something that puts Creationism/ID in the appropriate perspective.

It is worthwhile noting that, in science, the term theory has a specific meaning that most non-scientists won't know. A theory is not a guess or suggested explanation; it is an explanation that is 1) testable, 2) can be proven to be false, and 3) is supported by experiments and observations. In the case of evolution, the theory has all three; in particular, it is supported by multiple lines of evidence in many scientific disciplines, not just the fossil record. In every case, predictions made by evolutionary theory have been borne out by tests and observations. Creationist/ID proponents often disparage evolution by saying "it's just a theory"; however, in the context of the scientific definition of theory it's much closer to the layperson's definition of fact (especially for such a well supported scientific theory); this creationist/ID claim is therefore, at best, mistaken, and at worst deliberately misleading; this is akin to saying "gravity is just a theory". Scientists, in fact, no longer, make "laws" (such as "the law of gravity"); the highest rung in the ladder is theory. (An untested theory is called a hypothesis.)

Creationism - and ID, which is just creationism in a wrapper - does not meet any of the three criteria for a scientific theory or even a hypothesis. It is not testable, since the hand of God (or deity of your choice) is, by definition, invisible; as a result, it cannot be proven false; nor can it have experiments to support it. Further, any test or evidence which disproves evolution does not prove creationism/ID, as there is no indication that creationism/ID would be the only alternative in such a case. Even the success of a test for evolution can be said to happen because God manipulated the experiment. As such, creationism/ID does not belong in a science classroom; it can be taught in a philosophy or religion course, however.

A very good source for critical analysis of Creationism/ID claims - from a scientific viewpoint, of course - is [talkdesign]. Most, if not all, of the Creationist/ID claims, such as "irreducible complexity", are debunked here.

I've also posted a note pointing to your article on the James Randi Educational Forums ([link you all know!]), as there are many readers in that forum who are interested in the attempt to inject creationist/ID philosophy into the teaching of science.

 

[CapelDodger]

Well, where else are you going to teach evolution? In English or math?

This has raised some dust in my mental attics . I'm in my 50's, schooldays are way back, and I never took biology per se. I can remember the lesson, and the school places me at 9 or 10. I can also remember that I already knew about it. It was years later that I realised grown people were still talking about this stuff.

Having said that, I realize this is turning into a war ...

I've been observing from outside for some decades, and all I see is a continuing rumble of insurrection. No real ground is being made. Some people thought Reagan was the end of the world, on both sides, but they were disappointed. Bush Minor struts Amendments in front of adoring fans but has done nothing substantial for them. And the pendulum is swinging back across the mid-point.

Leaving aside catastrophes, biological sciences are surely going to provide the Next Big Thing. The medium-term interests of this world will win out over the obscurantists.

 

[Madalch]

Well, where else are you going to teach evolution? In English or math?

In a general science class required by everyone to graduate, rather than an optional class that not everybody will take.

 

[grmcdorman]

The Star has published four letters on the column; half are in favour of evolution and half are for creationism/ID. One, in particular, claims that evolution is controversial in the scientific community, which to my understanding is not true, at least in the life sciences.

Link: www dot thestar dot com /opinion/article/199107

 

[CapelDodger]

The Star has published four letters on the column; half are in favour of evolution and half are for creationism/ID. One, in particular, claims that evolution is controversial in the scientific community, which to my understanding is not true, at least in the life sciences.

Link: www dot thestar dot com /opinion/article/199107

Evolution by natural selection is most certainly not controversial in the scientific world. Aspects of it are, of course. The distinction is lost on some, and deliberately concealed by others.

 

[Tumblehome]

This has raised some dust in my mental attics . I'm in my 50's, schooldays are way back, and I never took biology per se. I can remember the lesson, and the school places me at 9 or 10. I can also remember that I already knew about it. It was years later that I realised grown people were still talking about this stuff.

I've been observing from outside for some decades, and all I see is a continuing rumble of insurrection. No real ground is being made. Some people thought Reagan was the end of the world, on both sides, but they were disappointed. Bush Minor struts Amendments in front of adoring fans but has done nothing substantial for them. And the pendulum is swinging back across the mid-point.

Leaving aside catastrophes, biological sciences are surely going to provide the Next Big Thing. The medium-term interests of this world will win out over the obscurantists.

I'm in my 50's as well, but it didn't raise any dust in my attic because I don't remember any evolution lessons at all, although there must have been somewhere along the line. (Nothing made much of an impression on me in school; I probably would have done better if I'd gone to school after I graduated. )

The rise of the neo-cons and Christian fundaments in the U.S. might not be affecting Britain much, but its putrid stench is blowing across the border to us in Canada, infecting people I walk among in the mall and the hockey rink, and maybe the teachers in my boys' school, if the article in the OP is any indication. That kind of radical politics/religion has always been a foreign concept to me, so seeing it now in my own neighbourhood is unsettling. I'm not so sure the pendulum is swinging back yet, but I agree with you that in the long run, reason (or at least the medium term interests of this world, as you put it), will prevail. It's what happens in the meantime that makes me nervous, so for the time being, it is a war for me.

(It's nice to "chat" with someone in Wales. I passed through Cardiff in 1974 on my way to Llanelli from London. I had to change trains in either Cardiff or Swansea, don't recall which. During the half-hour wait, I took a short walk and came to a large open square near the station, and down a side street was an old church with grave stones going back to the 1600's. For a Canadian, that's like stumbling on ancient Egyptian ruins. )

 

[Tumblehome]

In a general science class required by everyone to graduate, rather than an optional class that not everybody will take.

I like that idea, but it would have to be implemented first, at least where I live, and given the current climate (re: religious pressure on the teachers), school boards might be reluctant to institute something like that. But we can still pray for it. (*choke*sputter*gag*)

Semi-related case in point: Last year, in order to present his students with "another view of science", my son's physics teacher showed the class "What the Bleep Do We Know?" (*choke*sputter*gag*puke*)

 

[CapelDodger]

(It's nice to "chat" with someone in Wales. I passed through Cardiff in 1974 on my way to Llanelli from London. I had to change trains in either Cardiff or Swansea, don't recall which. During the half-hour wait, I took a short walk and came to a large open square near the station, and down a side street was an old church with grave stones going back to the 1600's. For a Canadian, that's like stumbling on ancient Egyptian ruins. )

For somone born on the island-home of Stonehenge, the idea of being able to walk, if one so wished, thousands of miles in one direction without boarding ship is similarly freaky. I'm at home with deep time, but not with deep distance. That both fascinates and unnerves me.

 

[Tumblehome]

The automobile and airplane were invented by North Americans because it was too far to walk anywhere.

(That was intended as a joke, but thinking on it, there might be some simple truth to it.)

 

[alfaniner]

"You can't teach biology without teaching the one thing that unifies the whole discipline."

I'm not sure of the context of that quote, or even who said it (not specified above), but I first read it as

"You can't teach biology without teaching the one thing that nullifies the whole discipline."

 

[grmcdorman]

Alfaniner, you'd see the source if you read the article (what is this, Slashdot )?

It's from Daniel Brooks, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Toronto. Context:

The situation has become such a concern to scientists that an international team of biologists has put together a new journal to help teachers prepare lesson plans on evolution.

"We've got to teach the teachers," says Daniel Brooks, a University of Toronto evolutionary biologist behind the journal, to be launched in the fall by European academic publishing giant Springer.

"You can't teach biology without teaching the one thing that unifies the whole discipline."

 

[fishbob]

Well, where else are you going to teach evolution? In English or math?

Having said that, I realize this is turning into a war and more extreme measures might have to be taken, like using evolution-based examples to solve math problems, or some such thing.

Way way back when, in a small town in south Texas, the local public school required general science in 7th, 8th, and 9th grades - including sections on physics, chemistry, biology - with introduction to evolution. 10th grade required science was biology. Chemistry and physics were 11th and 12th grade options.

Even in the backwards butt-end of America, we had a somewhat effective public school system all those years ago.

 

[aerosolben]

The Star has published four letters on the column; half are in favour of evolution and half are for creationism/ID. One, in particular, claims that evolution is controversial in the scientific community, which to my understanding is not true, at least in the life sciences.

You are correct: 95% of scientists (and 99.85% of earth/life scientists) do not consider creationism a valid scientific theory (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html)

The most disturbing thing about the letters is the sheer ignorance; the claims they assert are clearly and demonstrably false if an effort is made to examine the evidence, but they are not only believed, but actively put forth as valid counter-arguments against claims that are supported by evidence. These people don't need courses in evolution so much as they need them in critical thinking.