Should scientists debate creationists?

[Beth]

And how successful have they been in making changes to the actual curriculum?

Quite successful. I live in Kansas, where the curriculum seems to change every time there's an election. The conservative republicans get elected and eliminate evolution. Then the moderate republicans get elected and put it back in. Then the cycle repeats. It's been going on since before I was born.

 

[homer]

We don't get much debate about this subject over here . We do have so called ' faith based schools ' , brainwashing yet another generation of innocent minds with this adult version of the tooth fairy .
Questions about origins , how the universe could come from nothing etc is not an easy question to answer and just saying a creator did it answers nothing except to give us another more difficult set of questions such as ' What or whom created this creator ?' ' How did it do the deed ? ' . The latter question is something that science might try to answer without the extra baggage of the first part .
This so called 'debate' is ok if it is restricted to debating the existence of a creator and evidence for the existence of it , however it is usually nothing of the sort since it is just an attack on evolution .
What is the nature of this designer ? Was it some Aliens like the monolith in 2001 ? Could be , but where's the evidence ? If we found a factory on the far side of the moon making prototype animals ...but this is very silly as is this whole debate .

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm sorry, but we've discussed a number of issues. At this point, I'm not clear on how you think this issue (teachers approach to evolution in public school classrooms) relates to vouchers, what you feel the source of the problem is, or how you feel it should be handled.

Sorry, you're right, there was a lot in there. I'll try to be a little more clear.

I initially responded to your implication that public schools in the U.S. insist that students "believe in evolution" because I do not think they do anything of the kind. I used the example of how teachers often do not even teach the state mandated requirements and inject their own personal views -- that evolution is bunk -- into the classroom from time to time as evidence of just how far away we are from schools indoctrinating our youth into this "belief". I think some of these teachers act this way because they honestly think that there is something wrong with evolution, and that it calls into question their particular religious belief. I think there are others who do not want to deal with the grief they will get from one or two parents -- whose kids usually raise their hands in class and start the "I didn't descend from no monkey" conversation in front of the others.

As far as vouchers are concerned, they were devised initially as a means for the religiously minded to pull their kids from public school and put them into private school without having to pay for that private school the same as others have in the past. The private schools are generally religiously based and the motivation for placement in them is often of a religious nature (whatever the difference in quality). Granted there are some very bad schools out there and there are parents who simply want their kids to be safe or to have more choice, but for the most part the motivation is religious.

Public schooling is designed for the sole purpose of creating good citizens. Part of being a good citizen is having a basic understanding of science amongst many other topics that we all need to know in order to make informed decisions. Our public money should not be used by folks who want their kids to get a specifically religious education and to ignore educational areas that many feel to be important for citizenship.

I am not opposed to anyone who wants to raise their kids that way. I am not opposed to home schooling or to parochial schools or to the many evangelical schools that have sprung up. I have an acquaintance who home schools his children with (I've forgoteen the name of the program) a classics approach interpreted from a Christian perspective. While I think they are ruining Homer and Herodotus for this middle schooler (yes, they read The Odyssey and Herodotus' Histories in 7th grade) by explaining everything from a very strict Christian perspective, at least they have him reading something very worthwhile. I think parents should have the ultimate decision into how their children are educated. I simply do not feel that public funds should be diverted for this purpose. Public funds are to be used for a particular type of education.

If state educational mandates must be followed by any institution accepting kids from a voucher program, then I have no qualms with it at all. The purpose is always education for citizenship.

 

[Beth]

Sorry, you're right, there was a lot in there. I'll try to be a little more clear.

I initially responded to your implication that public schools in the U.S. insist that students "believe in evolution" because I do not think they do anything of the kind.

Okay. I get where you are coming from now. I didn't mean to imply that. Only that since belief is NOT required, it's okay for voucher schools to teach creationism too.

If state educational mandates must be followed by any institution accepting kids from a voucher program, then I have no qualms with it at all. The purpose is always education for citizenship.

We don't have much disagreement then. I don't have any problems with any extras a school might offer - for example, religious instruction or creationist theories in addition to evolution - as long as they teach what is required.

 

[articulett]

Public education in the U.S. exists for the purpose of creating good citizens. Parents are competent to decide that they want their children educated in a private school. If so, it is their responsibility to pay for it. What constitutes public education is decided by the public.

School vouchers are a sham.

I agree. I think the faith based abstinence education was a huge waste of tax payer money as well.

My son's chemistry teacher (Mormon), started a sentence with "If you believe in evolution,....". I told him he should answer his chemistry exams with the preface, "if you believe in atoms,..."

 

[mijopaalmc]

Is there any evidence that non-scientists can convey the concepts better? I think creationists aim to obfuscate... and it's hard for anyone to fix... scientist or not. I think a lot of people think they know the way to inform even though they have problems conveying the basics of evolution themselves. I think you are one of those people who think you understand evolution, but cannot convey the simplicity of natural selection because you have a vested interest in describing the entire process of evolution as random.

Scientists, at least, know why that doesn't work... why that is part of the wedge strategy... and the best definitions for avoiding the most common straw man. Still, I've never seen a creationist male over 40 change his mind the slightest on the issue, and I'm not sure they can. I've seen young people and women of all ages able to learn the basics so long as they get a basic grasp on natural selection... even people who were creationists in the past. Such people as Michael Shermer and Newlyfound (on this forum) credit Dawkins' for their understanding. I think if anyone can convey the concept to others-- he is the best by far. But he has written extensively... and there is information all over the web. Facts aren't debatable. And anyone curious enough to know the facts has much information readily accessible in every Natural History museum, biology text, Talk Origins, Dawkins' writings, etc.

Creationists think they know things they do not know and their goal is to obfuscate understanding. And those critiquing scientists as being poor spokespeople are often very poor spokespeople themselves. Dawkins has won an award for conveying the understanding of science to the public. I'm not sure any critics of scientists have.

This is precisely what the problem is, though. Some of the hardest core supporters of evolution decide that it has to be one way and that anyone who insists that it is not that way is a creationist a is not worthy of debate. (Although, it is interesting to note that thread such as Annoying Creationists and What evidence is there for evolution being non-random? are first and second most posted in threads in the Science, Math, Medicine and Technology subforum.)

Furthermore, they seem to think that explanations like "evolution is not random because adaptive mutations increase the probability of certain individuals' survivals over those that have neutral or maladaptive mutations" should suffice, when it is obvious that they are contradicting themselves. Something cannot be simultaneously non-random in the rigorous mathematical sense of the word and also manipulate probabilities or survival a reproduction. However, as mentioned before, when someone points this out to them, they automatically label that person a "creationist" without confirming whether the person believes that the "randomness" of evolution means that evolution is impossible (a common creationist belief, which I vehemently disavow.)

 

[Mobyseven]

I'm not avoiding the "logical outcome" you are claiming, I just think you're wrong about it. Creationist parents don't want to avoid teaching their children about evolution at all. They realize they must address it because it is prevalent in our society and children will ask about dinosaurs and such. What they want to do is teach their children about evolution in a way that doesn't undermine their religious faith.

In all honesty, I highly doubt that what creationist parents tell their children about evolution could really be considered teaching evolution at all. They aren't teaching evolution in a way that doesn't undermine their religious faith, they're teaching something completely different to evolution, and then telling their children that that is what evolution is.

It is as though someone were to educate their child in the belief that gravity is caused by magic elves who drag people down to earth whenever they jump, then ridiculing that idea and saying, "Heh, what silly gravitationalists! It's clearly more logical that god does gravity!"

 

[Oppressed]

I don’t know about being non-confrontational about it with creationists about this.

If you don’t debate them then you need to counter with publicity and campaigning or something.

Maybe I am just getting paranoid as I get older, but it seems to me religious faith in our country has been growing quite a bit in strength. I think people who are non-religious tend not to place so much effort at social grouping and bonding, building large groups of people working hard to hold and spread their beliefs.

Religious people are very good at this. With the grouping over a common belief and common goals, religious people become a significant social power and this can easily result in illogical religious dominance of society. Despite how rational and logical science may be, belief in science is just not a good group motivator in comparison to belief in God.

The US is a very religious country and it appears to me to be getting more religious not less so.

 

[Mobyseven]

Perhaps not a debate, but a public campaign designed to explain to people what science is and how it benefits society could have a positive effect?

I see public debate doing no more than polarising the two sides here.

 

[articulett]

I don’t know about being non-confrontational about it with creationists about this.

If you don’t debate them then you need to counter with publicity and campaigning or something.

Maybe I am just getting paranoid as I get older, but it seems to me religious faith in our country has been growing quite a bit in strength. I think people who are non-religious tend not to place so much effort at social grouping and bonding, building large groups of people working hard to hold and spread their beliefs.

Religious people are very good at this. With the grouping over a common belief and common goals, religious people become a significant social power and this can easily result in illogical religious dominance of society. Despite how rational and logical science may be, belief in science is just not a good group motivator in comparison to belief in God.

The US is a very religious country and it appears to me to be getting more religious not less so.

Plus, the religious spawn more spreading their "ignorant" genes along with their memes.

That's why I think mockery and humor will be the best tool in the long run. Get the kiddies laughing at their parents, if you must... but we don't need a world full of ignorant faith heads certain that they know "higher truths" and what god wants for us. Debate them if you will-- but don't hold back the incredulous looks and eye rolls at the inane things they proffer. Nothing about creationism is respect worthy--and these people are proffering it has a truth that will save the believers of it. That's scary and stupifying and worth deriding for the sake of all children.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Something cannot be simultaneously non-random in the rigorous mathematical sense of the word and also manipulate probabilities or survival a reproduction.

What????

Did I missed another discussion this is related to?

A process can have both random and non-random attributes. A thought experiment to elucidate:

Take two boxes. Throw 100 dies carelessly into one box and shake it up good. 100% random so far, right? Then go in and remove every die that came up six and put it in the second box, keeping the six up. Is this process random or non-random? This is, in a tiny thought experiment, essentially what's happening in evolution. What do creationists find this so hard to get -- that evolution is non-random results of random processes because selection is anything but random?

 

[Beth]

In all honesty, I highly doubt that what creationist parents tell their children about evolution could really be considered teaching evolution at all. They aren't teaching evolution in a way that doesn't undermine their religious faith, they're teaching something completely different to evolution, and then telling their children that that is what evolution is.

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.

But fortunately, that isn't the only alternative. After all, we don't require that students believe in the theory of evolution; they just need to have an elementary understanding of what scientists feel is the best explanation we can currently devise without invoking a creator.

So as long as a K-12 school met the curriculum requirements regarding what they teach, I think that is adequate and all we can reasonably ask of them.

 

[my_wan]

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.

But fortunately, that isn't the only alternative. After all, we don't require that students believe in the theory of evolution; they just need to have an elementary understanding of what scientists feel is the best explanation we can currently devise without invoking a creator.

So as long as a K-12 school met the curriculum requirements regarding what they teach, I think that is adequate and all we can reasonably ask of them.

What about the evidence, the reasons science scientist think evolution is the best explanation. No I don't think "an elementary understanding of what scientists feel is the best explanation we can currently devise without invoking a creator" is enough. It has nothing to do with an explanation that doesn't evoke a creator. It is all about the evidence. You seem to have specifically ruled that the actual evidence not be a required part of the teaching and apparently called it a far worse alternative to not teaching anything about evolution. This is a travesty!

Perhaps your not even aware of the evidence and was taught that it is only a theory to provide a naturalistic explanation. Is this why so many come here claiming evolution is nothing more than a belief?

 

[Beth]

What about the evidence, the reasons science scientist think evolution is the best explanation. No I don't think "an elementary understanding of what scientists feel is the best explanation we can currently devise without invoking a creator" is enough.

Then you could argue for including such evidence in the curriculum standards. Currently, I don't think it is in my state.

It has nothing to do with an explanation that doesn't evoke a creator. It is all about the evidence. You seem to have specifically ruled that the actual evidence not be a required part of the teaching and apparently called it a far worse alternative to not teaching anything about evolution.

No. I haven't.

Perhaps your not even aware of the evidence and was taught that it is only a theory to provide a naturalistic explanation. Is this why so many come here claiming evolution is nothing more than a belief?

I think you may have mistaken me for someone who doesn't believe in evolution. That is not the case.

 

[mijopaalmc]

What????

Did I missed another discussion this is related to?

A process can have both random and non-random attributes. A thought experiment to elucidate:

Take two boxes. Throw 100 dies carelessly into one box and shake it up good. 100% random so far, right? Then go in and remove every die that came up six and put it in the second box, keeping the six up. Is this process random or non-random? This is, in a tiny thought experiment, essentially what's happening in evolution. What do creationists find this so hard to get -- that evolution is non-random results of random processes because selection is anything but random?

Except that is not how evolution works. Instead, each set of genes that contributes to the fitness of the individual (i.e., its ability to survive and reproduce in the environment in which it lives) confer a probability of survival and reproduction. In your example, you have a deterministic process: if its a "6" it goes in the box; if it's not a "6" it doesn't go in the box. For your example to resemble natural selection there has to be a chance that a "6" will not go in the box. It doesn't have to be a 50/50 chance or a chance that is identical for all events involved; it just has to be a chance that a "6" won't end up in the box. This is how "randomness" is mathematically defined: by its relationship to probability. Furthermore, this is why it is inconsistent to say that evolution is non-random but that adaptive mutations increase an organisms probability of survival and reproduction.

I fully realize that creationists do use the "randomness" of evolution in their arguments against evolution, but to say that no credible scientist refers to evolution as "random" not only ignores that fact there are 85 years research on modeling evolution a stochastic/random process but also ignores that the scientists who do vehemently oppose the characterization of evolution as "random" do not themselves have a logically consistent way of describing how evolution functions.

 

[quixotecoyote]

the randomness is that each die may or may not be a six and thus may or may not be moved to the second box (be selected).

 

[my_wan]

Then you could argue for including such evidence in the curriculum standards. Currently, I don't think it is in my state.

Your right, I'm not aware of it it in any states curriculum. I would argue that it should be. The evidence is all important in an education about evolution. What scientist or anybody else 'believes' is of no value to anyone.

No. I haven't.

I did have doubts about what you intended to convey. I qualified my characterization with "seem to" for this reason. I would like to hear you articulate what it was you were trying to get across.
Specifically (from my impression);
1) Why would the possibility of something being taught undermining their religious faith (or any other belief skeptic or not) have any bearing on whether it should be taught?
2) You seem to indicate that, "they just need to have an elementary understanding of what scientists feel is the best explanation we can currently devise without invoking a creator". Italics mine. My position was that if all they need to know is that evolution is the best explanation "without invoking a creator" why bother teaching evolution at all? From my perspective the evidence is the theory of evolution. Whether or not it it has ramifications about our concept of a creator is totally irrelevant from my POV. I don't see how limiting evolution education to what scientist "feel" gives any education at all to make choices. All it does is provide a choice of belief with nothing more than personal preference as a basis for that belief.

I think you may have mistaken me for someone who doesn't believe in evolution. That is not the case.

Actually I did have the impression you believed in evolution. The thing that confused me is why you would believe it if the evidence wasn't central in that belief. Personally I would never accept evolution in any factual manner without that evidence. Devoid of any evidence God or alien experiment would a priori be just as suitable.

I have tried to convey my perspective here. If you have any questions about it just ask. I would also appreciate it if you articulated your own ideas a little more.

 

[mijopaalmc]

the randomness is that each die may or may not be a six and thus may or may not be moved to the second box (be selected).

I'm sorry but the selection criterion is not random because the fact that if the roll is a "6'" completely determines whether or not the die end up in the box. In general, a phenotype only has a probability (not a guarantee) of being selected.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I'm sorry but the selection criterion is not random because the fact that if the roll is a "6'" completely determines whether or not the die end up in the box. In general, a phenotype only has a probability (not a guarantee) of being selected.

The die roll is representing the random mutation.

The requirement of '6's is what is representing the environment.

In the environment of the thought requirement the dice with 6's survive to reproduce. The other's don't. You could parallel this to reindeer with thicker fur, moths with appropriate wing color, Africans with malaria immunity or any other selection pressure. In the example it is abstracted to a '6'.

Thus it is random as far a which dice have the 'mutation' but deterministic in the sense of the environment determining the 'selection'.


eta:Upon a reread I think I understand your objection better. Your problem is that individuals without the beneficial mutations also reproduce and this thought experiment doesn't cover it. That's true, but it's also beyond the scope of the principle being demonstrated.

If you absolutely won't accept the illustration without that mechanic involved, put all the '6's into the second box immediately and reroll the remainder for a '6' before failing them. This would represent the advantage of a the beneficial mutation over the others while still retaining the overall point.

 

[my_wan]

I'm sorry but the selection criterion is not random because the fact that if the roll is a "6'" completely determines whether or not the die end up in the box. In general, a phenotype only has a probability (not a guarantee) of being selected.

To use the dice analogy just make it so that if you role a 6 you then roll again and if it is not a "6" it goes in the box. If you roll a 6 and the next roll is a 6 it doesn't go in the box. Now any given 6 "phenotype only has a probability (not a guarantee) of being selected". The end result is of course the same.