Should scientists debate creationists?

[articulett]

The kids don't ask the questions about carbon dating and randomness etc. unless misinformation is given to them by adults. They really don't. Just like they don't ask teachers to prove atom exists or that the formula for gravity is correct.

When kids ask loaded creationist questions, I point out that lots of religions have creation stories that they want their members to believe, but science can only go by the facts that are the same for everybody. We have no evidence of talking snakes, but we do have evidence of DNA, etc. Science can't really concern itself with all the different stories different religions and myths have been proffering over the eons. Something has to be measurable on some level for science to understand it further.

 

[articulett]

It has been pointed out to Mijo on numerous occasions that "fitness" really only means who got to reproduce the most... to the extent that the advantage was in the DNA, it gets passed on preferentially... DNA's algorithm is just to build the best replicators in whatever environment the replicators find themselves in. The information changes "randomly" (without respect to whether it's useful or not), but the environment selects the winners... including all the other entities inhabiting the environment.

But, I'm telling you-- he can not nor will not compute this. For some reason, he wants to define fitness according to "human standards" and hypotheticals. But only the environment can. Fitness can be having a foul stench that keeps predators away. Fitness can be having crazy shaped genitalia. Fitness can be have trillions of sperm. Fitness can be having the capacity to hold your breath during flooding or to prefer to live deep underground, etc. He wants to call unpredictable environmental events like tornadoes random... but everything that evolves, evolves to live on this planet where such randomness is "expected".

 

[my_wan]

No, it's not difficult to teach what the evidence is. It's difficult to teach why the evidence is to be trusted and why it supports the theory of evolution. At some point, you have to ask the child to have faith that what you are telling them is true and accurate.

Why even try to teach how trustworthy the evidence is. It is good that they would question its trustworthiness. The most important thing is that they have the evidence as presented to consider possible fallacies. If the pursuit of these fallacies inspires higher learning so much the better. Isn't that worlds ahead of saying, "scientist believe evolution"? With that they don't even have evidence to question. The very idea that what a teacher teaches is to be "trusted" without question is disturbing to me. It is a totally seperate issue than trust of the individual teacher.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Good answer.

It helps having to have actually done that before

 

[Mobyseven]

Yes, well, if the alternative is to require their children to learn something the completely undermines their religious faith, then the alternative is far worse.

Forgive my apparent ignorance, but why exactly is promoting non-critical thinking and strawman representations of evolution a better alternative than actually teaching students the science behind evolution?

You aren't seriously proposing that it's ok for parents to teach their children blatant falsehoods and call it science, are you? That path can lead only to scientific stagnation, if not a massive scientific setback!

Religious faith should take precedence over science in a science class?

Really?

 

[jimbob]

Just to avoid many further derailments to this thread, we have debated this a lot on another thread.

I say that the selection pressures are nonrandom, but the selection is probabilistic. A beneficial mutation increases the odds of an organism reproducing. But an understanding of how likely it is for a mutation to take hold and spread through a population is best quantified in probabilistic terms.

Some people agree with that premise, others have an objection to "stochastic", "probability", or "random", in describing natural selection; mainly (if I understand them) because they say it is unclear.

Admittedly I consider myself to be highly numerate, but I can't see what is unclear about saying that mutations modulate the chances of an organism's reproduction.

Mijo has previously said that he believes humanity evolved, with no supernatural intervention; so if he is an ID proponent, he is a pretty odd one...

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

The kids don't ask the questions about carbon dating and randomness etc. unless misinformation is given to them by adults. They really don't. Just like they don't ask teachers to prove atom exists or that the formula for gravity is correct.

If kids don't ask questions about the details of science, it's not a triumph for scientific education, it's a failure.

I bet less than 10% of people reading this comment know how C14 dating works.

 

[articulett]

If kids don't ask questions about the details of science, it's not a triumph for scientific education, it's a failure.

I bet less than 10% of people reading this comment know how C14 dating works.

Nah, kids just don't ask the weenie questions creationists ask. They'll ask how we know how old bones are and there are multiple radiometric measurements-- that don't say things like "carbon dating isn't accurate" or "how is evolution nonrandom?" or "what good is half an eye?" or "where are the transitional fossils?" unless some preacher lied to them and made them distrust science.

 

[mijopaalmc]

My point mainly is that I think some rather prominent evolutionary biologists and their supporters cover up the deficiencies in their arguments about the non-randomness of evolution by insisting that anyone who contradicts them in a creationist. So, while it may be true that most of the people who openly call to debate evolutionary biologists on evolution are those that believe that each species was specially created by a supernatural entity, it may not be true that those the evolutionary biologists and their proponents label "creationists" are actually those who believe that each species was specially created by a supernatural entity.

The discussion of the specifics of the randomness (or lack thereof) of evolution may be better suited for What evidence is there for evolution being non-random? but I do think that we should note that the term "creationist" is often politicized and used to smear people rather than consider their position rationally.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Nah, kids just don't ask the weenie questions creationists ask. They'll ask how we know how old bones are and there are multiple radiometric measurements-- that don't say things like "carbon dating isn't accurate" or "how is evolution nonrandom?" or "what good is half an eye?" or "where are the transitional fossils?" unless some preacher lied to them and made them distrust science.

Ever think that kids might not ask these questions because they accept what their teachers say on authority rather any rational basis?

I'm not saying that it is necessarily unreasonable to ask someone to clarify when they ask these questions, but I do think that asking these questions will lead to a better understanding of evolution and allow people to combat creationist flim-flam.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Ever think that kids might not ask these questions because they accept what their teachers say on authority rather any rational basis?

I'm not saying that it is necessarily unreasonable to ask someone to clarify when they ask these questions, but I do think that asking these questions will lead to a better understanding of evolution and allow people to combat creationist flim-flam.

The questions articulett presented will not be asked in the course of trying to understand evolution in a classroom setting. That is because they do not follow from lessons on evolution. They are questions born of a warped conception of evolution, brought forth in ignorance by creationists who don't care that the questions are nonsensical as long as they appear to pose problems for the ToE.

 

[Dymanic]

So, while it may be true that most of the people who openly call to debate evolutionary biologists on evolution are those that believe that each species was specially created by a supernatural entity, it may not be true that those the evolutionary biologists and their proponents label "creationists" are actually those who believe that each species was specially created by a supernatural entity.

There are certainly many aspects of evolutionary theory that are not only open to debate, but debated often. Your choice of words, however, suggests something stronger; challenges to the theory as a whole. Other than the positing of supernatural entities, I can't think of any other basis for such a challenge. Maybe you could provide an example of a person who would "openly call to debate evolutionary biologists on evolution", yet who would not deserve the label: "creationist".

 

[mijopaalmc]

The questions articulett presented will not be asked in the course of trying to understand evolution in a classroom setting. That is because they do not follow from lessons on evolution. They are questions born of a warped conception of evolution, brought forth in ignorance by creationists who don't care that the questions are nonsensical as long as they appear to pose problems for the ToE.

There are certainly many aspects of evolutionary theory that are not only open to debate, but debated often. Your choice of words, however, suggests something stronger; challenges to the theory as a whole. Other than the positing of supernatural entities, I can't think of any other basis for such a challenge. Maybe you could provide an example of a person who would "openly call to debate evolutionary biologists on evolution", yet who would not deserve the label: "creationist".

That's just the problem with the vast majority of arguments that I have seen in response to the proposition that evolution is random: saying evolution is random does not challenge the theory at all. What creationists neglect when they argue that evolution's randomness make the whole theory impossible is that convergence of random variables leads to (central) limit theorems which allow order to arise from randomness with many repetitions of a random process. It happened as living, replicating systems arose from non-living, non-replicating systems and repeated itself innumerable times over as the multitude of species evolved from their common ancestors.

Why can't creationists have everything so horribly wrong? Why can't they be misinterpreting not only the biology, chemistry, and physics of evolution but also the mathematics of randomness?

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

Nah, kids just don't ask the weenie questions creationists ask. They'll ask how we know how old bones are and there are multiple radiometric measurements-- that don't say things like "carbon dating isn't accurate" or "how is evolution nonrandom?" or "what good is half an eye?" or "where are the transitional fossils?" unless some preacher lied to them and made them distrust science.

These seem like valid concerns to me:
Concerns about calibration of radiodating techniques
How can random processes give specific values?
How do entirely new traits evolve?
(I didn't read the transitional fossil thread to which you are no doubt alluding)

In fact I think all of these questions are currently being explored in the field.

I find no reason to suspect ulterior motives in those who ask the tough questions.

 

[quixotecoyote]

These seem like valid concerns to me:
Concerns about calibration of radiodating techniques
How can random processes give specific values?
How do entirely new traits evolve?
(I didn't read the transitional fossil thread to which you are no doubt alluding)

In fact I think all of these questions are currently being explored in the field.

I find no reason to suspect ulterior motives in those who ask the tough questions.

Look carefully at the questions articulett gave and compare then to the formulations you just made. See the difference?

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

Look carefully at the questions articulett gave and compare then to the formulations you just made. See the difference?

Fair enough. If the questions were asked as stated by articulett, I might suspect an ulterior motive. However, I think the proper response is to show that research is done regarding the concerns behind those questions.

 

[Father Dagon]

In the US creationism/evolution is the educational battleground, so it's hardly surprising it's a focus of attention.

More important is what voucher schools will teach, be it Marxism, Ayurvedic learning, or racial stereotyping. Belief in UFO's. The Truther School in Oregon. Almost any social splinter can summon up enough vouchers to subsidise one special school for the next generation of believers. That way disaster lies.

But vouchers can be more efficient in weeding out the inferior memes by raw and brutal natural selection.

 

[JoeEllison]

But vouchers can be more efficient in weeding out the inferior memes by raw and brutal natural selection.

Maybe... or it could be a way of strengthening certain bad ideas through isolation and encouragement.

 

[Meadmaker]

Answered in that other thread.

 

[Dancing David]

Ever think that kids might not ask these questions because they accept what their teachers say on authority rather any rational basis?

I'm not saying that it is necessarily unreasonable to ask someone to clarify when they ask these questions, but I do think that asking these questions will lead to a better understanding of evolution and allow people to combat creationist flim-flam.

This is not generally true of an american class room, children and young adults are usually encouraged to ask questions and have some really good ones

a. kids won't ask questions because they are bored or don't want to stand out.(A very small percent of the later)

b. kids and especially kids before high school will ask lots of questions , all the time. In fact teachers have to limit the number of questions asked because the kids will spend a lot of time asking questions. Like what did Romans eat for breakfast and why didn't they listen to rap music.

c. kids are less likely to ask questions in a math or science class but most teachers encourage questions and most kids ask them, especially if they know it will impact their grades.

The questions that articulett mentions are very specific,
RE radio carbon dating: it is a given that radio carbon dating is a range and not an absolute, in a pre college classroom there is a lot of information to cover, so the discussion of contamination (the single largest source of error) is not going to be discussed, nor is other sources of dating that are used to get other dates for the material. So often the whole range of issues is not covered, although whiteyonthemoon is wrong, sixth grade social studies does discuss exactly how radio carbon dating works!