Creationism and Evolution in the Classroom

Posted by Greg Laden on February 16, 2009
(47)
More »

So, yesterday Afternoon, there was a meeting of the Minnesota Atheists that included a one hour panel discussion of evolution, creationism, science education, and so on. The panel was moderated by Lynn Fellman, and included (in order from right to left as the audience gazed on) Randy Moore, Sehoya Cotner, Jane Phillips, Greg Laden, and PZ Myers.

There were several ways in which this discussion was interesting, and I’ll tell you a few of them here. Presumably PZ will have something as well. (UPDATE: PZ has this.)

To begin with, this was a pretty full room (a hundred or so?) and almost everyone in this room was an atheist, agnostic, rationalist, or some such thing, so the kinds of questions one gets are different than in other contexts. This did not obviate some of the common sorts of misunderstandings about human evolution, somewhat conservative/libertarian welfare stigmata, or even the occasional notation that “well we don’t call it a soul but there is a soul.”

One of the most interesting things that came out, I thought, was when PZ Myers, preparing to follow up on a comment I made, admitted publicly (and this was recorded on audio tape and at least two video camera, and there were plenty of witnesses) that I am meaner than he is.

An important theme that came up was how we teach evolution in classrooms that include dyed in the wool creationist student. Randy talked about being very straight up with the students about the fact that this is a science class. Sehoya talked about an experiment she is doing with her students, in which she does not mention Darwin the whole time but still teaches evolution.

Jane and I are not currently teaching at this level in UG college, so we did not have as much to say, but I noted my technique of yore: I make an explicit statement on day one that creationism would not be mentioned ever in this classroom. Then, for the rest of the semester, I mention creationism, always as an aside, always snarkily, always with disdain, always with humor, so an increasingly large number of students join in with uproarious laughter at the expense of the increasingly smaller and smaller number of “out” creationist. In other words, I invoke the ugly Weapon of Mass Destruction known as peer pressure.

PZ probably has the best method, which is to teach a course in the history of scientific thought with creationism/evolution as a theme, and then eventually get to the details of the biology. Even if that does not leave as much time as one might like to do the details of the biology itself, this would be a very valuable experience for the students.

I’m teaching a more advanced evo course next year. Maybe I’ll try something like that.

I just want to mention one point that I made that I feel is very important: There is a big difference between what can and should happen in a college classroom and a high school classroom, owing to the difference in relationship between instructor and administration, instructor and student, and instructor and parents. And school boards (colleges, we don’t have ‘em!). These differences need to be kept in mind when discussing strategies. For example, PZ’s strategy and my strategy would not work in a high school. For long.

Keywords: , , , , , ,
(47)
More »

Comments

  1. #1 Lorax
    February 16, 2009

    It was an interesting discussion and did help make up for the fact I missed the party at the Bell Museum on Thursday. Learned a few things I didnt want to, like 25% of public high school students are taught creationism in Minnesota. FUCK. Some of the questions/comments regarding the uber-awesomeness of us, specifically white anglo-saxon Americans, as the epitome of evolution left me feeling that we need to do much much more in the trenches in education. On the plus side I got to catch up with a number of colleagues I hadn’t seen recently and meet Randy Moore and Mike Haubrich, so that was a success. Would have said Hi to you as well Greg, but you seemed to be fairly well mobbed.

    On a side note I stopped by the creationist “science” fair on the way home just to undo all the good feeling I had from the panel discussion. I have a few comments to post later, but first I have a manuscript that needs immediate attention.

  2. #2 Greg Laden
    February 16, 2009

    Lorax, yea, I would have liked to talk to you, but we’ll get together for a beer or something. Let me know when you post on the TCCS Fair!!!!!!

    I agree with your comments about the meeting.

  3. #3 askmieke
    February 16, 2009

    Why would an educator need to resort to anything other than critical thinking to marginalize creationist theories. I find your ‘tactics’ humorous and sad. If you can’t answer the simple questions a student might have without resorting to peer pressure, I’m glad I never had you as an instructor.
    I don’t care where the student gets his base knowledge from, but if he/she has a thoughtful question, it deserves a thoughtful answer.

    Or maybe you’re just too enlightened to be of any earthly purpose. I’m sure the alien seeders probably added a little extra fertilizer around your pod.

  4. #4 CyberLizard
    February 16, 2009

    @askmieke – Didn’t you read the post? PZ said that Greg was meaner than him. Greg’s just a big ol’ meanie. Besides, any creationist question is unlikely to be “thoughtful”.

  5. #5 Craig
    February 16, 2009

    I agree, askmieke, that seems over the top. I have a couple of vocal creationists in my high school biology classes this year, and I am planning on breaking them down with logic and reason, but I’m not sure they have any. They are Concrete Operators, to be sure.

  6. #6 Stephanie Z
    February 16, 2009

    Hmm, wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the locus of belief in creationism for these kids is mostly in social pressure (from parents and other authority figures), would it?

  7. #7 the real Yeshua Ha Noze-ring
    February 16, 2009

    askmieke, do you think that peer pressure is unfair when employed with adults and near adults?
    I wonder what you think about the manner in which children are blackmailed into religions via sunday school/catechism/ and /or parentally enforced ‘prayer groups’ before they can talk?

  8. #8 askmieke
    February 16, 2009

    I love your justification, oh enlightened ones. Even Craig feels he needs to ‘break them down with logic and reason’. Children couldn’t possibly have logic and reason if their conclusion differs from the enlightened ones.

    How does that fit in the scientific process of:
    # Ask a Question
    # Do Background Research
    # Construct a Hypothesis
    # Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
    # Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
    # Communicate Your Results

    Children couldn’t possibly understand the difference between a rock and a brick. There isn’t enough evidence to suggest anything other than erosion.

    I think modern scientists are a perfect example of how intelligence has no place in science.

  9. #9 the real me
    February 16, 2009

    has anyone toodled over to the askmieke blog yet? Right wing wacko.

  10. #10 catgirl
    February 16, 2009

    For college level classes, just treat students who believe in creationism the same way you would treat students who believe in astrology. If they are in college and taking biology course, they should already know the difference between science and pseudo-science. Depending on the goals of the course, you probably shouldn’t even bother mentioning creationism. If the students are not prepared to accept evolution as the scientific standard, then they need to find out early so they can change their major.

    It might be appropriate to bring up creationism in a course that is more focused on the history of evolution and also covers things like Lamarckism and the discovery of DNA as the genetic material, the same way it might be appropriate to bring up astrology or geocentrism in a class about the history of astronomy. However, if the class is supposed to give students a deep understanding of evolution, it is unfair to waste class time on creationism. The best thing to do is just ignore it unless a students insists on bringing it up in class. None of my biology teachers ever brought up creationism or ID and it worked out fine.

  11. #11 Lorax
    February 16, 2009

    If I may, askmieke back up your points with some data with value. As a creationist or creationist supporter, what is the positive data to support your contention the creationism is right? Saying that some scientific information is wrong, thus your conjecture is right is bullshit and you know it (if you dont please shut the fuck up).

    Why cant we debate this in high school and college and beyond forever? Why don’t we spend time in calculas and algebra classes reiterating the fact that 6 comes before 7 not the other way around? Maybe devote a couple of hours to both sides and being respectful to all the moronic opinions of everyone. You know why we don’t do this? Because we want to teach our students something so they can be competitive or at least useful members of society today not in 1600 or even 1859. You want some antibiotics when the present ones fail? You want some food when a resistant fungus starts wiping them out (say good-bye to bananas as you know them)? You want something to heat your house and move your vehicle when gas/oil runs dry? If so, please stop forcing us to spend hours and hours rehashing bullshit. If not, please bow out of the discourse so those of us who want these things can get them. Please stop forcing your reactionary fundamentalist crap on us. You dont like these things, fine ignore them dont use them, please dont see a doctor next time you are sick, almost certainly some equipment/treatment you receive came from these scientists with no intelligence. You can live your life however you want I won’t stop you until you try fucking over everyone else’s life with your narrow, mindless, devoid of real joy of nature and life, world-view of yours.

    And no children CAN NOT have logic and reason to support their conclusions when they differ from the enlightened ones. Nuh Uh! is not a logical reason dumbass. What you mean, is a child’s parental indoctrination not logic and reason. How fucking stupid to compare a child with someone who has spent years and years devoted to study and analysis. So your opinion is all that study and thought and work leads to a big enlightened conspiracy, because the conclusion differs from your 8 year old level understanding, I see.

    Do me a favor askmieke, next time you need your car fixed, take it a kid, not an enlightened mechanic, same for any other services you need. Hell, they will probably charge you less and won’t make you feel all intimated and stupid.

  12. #12 Lorax
    February 16, 2009

    Damn, I could really take you up on that beer right now Greg!

  13. #13 CyberLizard
    February 16, 2009

    First of all, Greg was talking about using that approach on his college students. We’re not talking about wide-eyed children asking an innocent question that they haven’t fully processed or analysed. We’re talking about adults who, supposedly, have had 12 years worth of education, including education in the basic scientific method. He admits that his approach wouldn’t be accepted in the lower levels of school.

    The issue isn’t that professors and scientists are pissed that children are applying logic and reason and coming to different conclusions, but rather that logic and reason are being thrown to the floor and pissed on by creationists in their increasingly desperate attempt to cling to a mythology that clearly cannot withstand even the slightest attempt at scientific methodology. Scientists would be the first to admit that, given sufficient evidence, they would be happy to change their positions on things. Can’t say that about creationists, though.

  14. #14 askmieke
    February 16, 2009

    Science, faith, instinct and intuition are not mutually exclusive. They should be partners on the journey of a mystery that unfolds, seeking truths as they are discovered… that is everywhere present in the very creativity and variety of life itself.

    If students are FORCED to see faith and science fundamentally opposed – science endangering and undermining faith, or faith obstructing knowledge – then distortions are produced on BOTH sides.

    As a a man of faith, St Augustine wrote, “Let us seek with the desire to find, and find with the desire to seek still more.”

  15. #15 Greg T. Meanie
    February 16, 2009

    Let me add two points of clarification. Maybe three.

    1) As stated, these are adults, not kids. This is college, not high school.

    2) I never ridicule in answer to a question. Ever. This is not what I’m talking about. I raise the issue and and discuss it as part of a soliloquy in a large lecture format. The fact that in some cases I’m addressing questions that some people have in their heads is, well, the point.

    3) Lots of other stuff happens in a class like this. This is part of a larger picture. I assure you that in the student reviews of this class, 80 percent of the students were basically satisfied, 19 percent totally loved it, and one percent … well, that would be Askmieke. Can’t please everyone!

  16. #16 tarponmaster
    February 16, 2009

    askmieke…..YES! Science and faith are mutually exclusive. You can have faith that you are correct in assumptions, but must rigorously test them to be sure your premises are not false. The type of faith you are referring to, unless I am mistaken, has no place in a scientific arena. You cannot “take on faith” that you are correct, or that a statement is correct.

    You are correct in the statement that faith obstructs knowledge, it always does, it stymies curiousity, it blocks reason. Those with religious bent challenged with information and observation beyond thier dogmas’ ken can always fall back on the ‘Great Mystery” and simply say “God did it”.

    Faith based religions (Thats all of them) Have no place ni the science class. They certainly have thier place in the teaching of Mythology, and even more so in History classes to illustrate the ignorance and poverty they engender.

  17. #17 Stacy
    February 16, 2009

    Well it’s sort of OT for the discussion part of the thread – but if you ask me Greg … If online persona is telling- even a little bit- then I think you are waaaaayyy nicer than PZ. :-)

  18. #18 Stacy
    February 16, 2009

    @Greg – You mentioned something at PZ’s site about…

    “If we could do what we really could do in HS, college would be an entirely different experience.” …

    What would you like the HS teachers to do? Specifically?

    I’ll pass it on to my hubby – he teaches HS biology and earth science.

  19. #19 CyberLizard
    February 16, 2009

    Nah, Greg’s a Meanie, but we like him that way

  20. #20 the real Yeshua Ha Noze-ring
    February 16, 2009

    askmieke: “Science, faith, instinct and intuition are not mutually exclusive”

    That may or may not be true, but what is sure is that pluggging the word “faith” into the sentence with the other three is like puttin the words “The father, the son, my last big shit, and the holy ghost” into the same sentence.

    “If students are FORCED to see faith and science fundamentally opposed”

    You have the order wrong mieke: it is you and others forcing and coercing kids into a certain viewpoint, if only because these kids from religious households suffer the primary indignity of being taught baseless hyperbole, and that often at the end of “the rod of punishment” before the schools ever get to the point of dealing with the problems you have created with such methods. Then, the schools are left to deal with undoing such brainwashing, which of course you see as children being “forced” into something.

  21. #21 Crystal D.
    February 16, 2009

    First, Greg, you did seem pretty mean up there… :) Second, I’ve taken to calling the one really outspoken nutjob “Soul Man”… Thanks much to you for adding to the discussion, everyone on the panel was fun and informative.

  22. #22 Mike Haubrich, FCD
    February 16, 2009

    askmieke: “Science, faith, instinct and intuition are not mutually exclusive”

    .

    I for one don’t think that faith deserves the prima noctia any longer. If people want to have faith with their science, toodles and talk about it at church or in philosophy class. But if you think that college professors should waste valuable lecture time (3 hours per week for a 3 credit course,) trying to help some students reconcile their faith with science then the students who are there to actually learn the science of evolution, then their money is being wasted.

    Take it outside of class if you must, but leave everyone else the time to get the most possible out of the lectures.

  23. #23 Greg Laden
    February 16, 2009

    Stacy, since you were not there, I’ve produce proof for you. Here.

  24. #24 Greg Laden
    February 16, 2009

    Mike: Yea, but were it not for the Catholic Church, Latin would be a totally deal language and you would not be able to say that.

  25. #25 ArchangelChuck
    February 16, 2009

    What people don’t understand is that in science, not all ideas have validity. They stand on their merit, and they’re not to be debated by high school students, who don’t even have the entry level skills to discuss anything in the academic arena. There is no “controversy,” and even if there was one, high school students aren’t qualified in the slightest to form an opinion.

    Creationism doesn’t get to cut in line. It has to undergo the same ruthless process that every other scientific theory goes through. They want “respect,” but they don’t want to earn it. My opinion is they shouldn’t even be given the time of day in a science classroom. I’m totally with Greg, that it should be shunned and laughed at, not discussed and debated. Peer pressure is a powerful tool, and I think that’s brilliant.

    Greg, you have some cojones. I admire that. :)

  26. #26 Nemo
    February 16, 2009

    Hmm, wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the locus of belief in creationism for these kids is mostly in social pressure (from parents and other authority figures), would it?

    Exactly. As they say, you can’t reason someone out of a position that they didn’t reason themselves into. (We do try. It doesn’t work. Arguing with a creationist is like talking to a wall.) But you may be able to peer-pressure someone out of a position that they only adopted because of peer pressure. In that respect, it’s a legitimate approach.

    In an ideal world, rational argument would suffice. But no creationist believes in creationism for rational reasons.

  27. #27 eddie
    February 16, 2009

    Nemo gets to the heart of askmeikle’s strategy. He,she,it objects to the use of a method precisely because they see and fear its effectiveness.

  28. #28 Ron
    February 16, 2009

    Lorax: Saying that some scientific information is wrong, thus your conjecture is right is bullshit and you know it (if you dont please shut the fuck up).

    No, this is how science supposedly works. But when scientific collapse does not serve the scientific ‘theory’ the claims are not backed down. So the science becomes a lie.

    How fucking stupid to compare a child with someone who has spent years and years devoted to study and analysis. And of course, by this you mean years of indoctrinated thought.

    Out of the mouth of babes comes truth very often.

  29. #29 Quantico
    February 16, 2009

    AZ: “If you can’t answer the simple questions a student might have without resorting to peer pressure”

    You’ve misunderstood the good doctor. He does not slam the students who are asking questions. He produces this argument as part of the class introduction, and goes back to it at random times later on. I have had the great pleasure of seeing this. I still think of it and laugh some times.

  30. #30 Lorax
    February 16, 2009

    Ron: No, this is how science supposedly works. But when scientific collapse does not serve the scientific ‘theory’ the claims are not backed down. So the science becomes a lie.

    Wrong Ron, absolutely and without question wrong. Let me explain by example: One person says “Ron is a space alien from Alpha Centari,” but another person counters “No, Ron Creationist fucking moron.” Are those the only two options? Maybe Ron is a troll? Maybe Ron is channeling a recently decent douche from a mega-church. Scientific questions, puzzles, controversies do not equal GOD. Its a failed idiotic logically dead position. So, find a real problem with evolution theory, fine that does not mean your fucking weak ass excuse for a deity created you and your brain dead body.

    Out of the mouth of babes comes truth very often.

    I read some of the original “Kids say the darnedest things” book my grandmother owned. I recall some very funny things, even insightful things based on my adult interpretation of what they said. But you know what, no insights into advanced sciences. No fruitful ideas for combating malaria or dealing with the economic problems the world is dealing with. Hmm, maybe kids say deep truths to you Ron, but some of us actually advanced beyond grade school depth of understanding and thought.

  31. #31 Greg Laden
    February 16, 2009

    I read some of the original “Kids say the darnedest things”

    Did you ever see the original TV show?????

  32. #32 Ron
    February 16, 2009

    Lorax, your ad hominem attacks are unjustified.

    Science works by excluding ideas. There is no way to exclude the idea of god, so a Godless proposition is not tenable. Once God is allowed to remain in the picture, the probability of Intelligent Design (if you like to call it that) or creation, at least of the origin of life, is impossible to miss.

  33. #33 Lorax
    February 16, 2009

    Greg, not quite old enough to see the original shows although I did watch the Irish Rovers with my grandmother. Also I tossed up a post on this discussion and the creation fair, not too much raw info on it though.

    Ron, ok you got me. I apologize to all those instructors I have had over the years for failing to understand the nature of science. 20 ought years of training and advanced learning was lost on me. Praise Jeebus. Let me take your approach. There is no way to exclude the idea that Ron is an imbecile, so an intelligent Ron proposition is not tenable. Once imbecility is allowed to remain in the picture, the probability of ignoring Ron and his weak ass (if you like to call it that) or stupid argument, at least in relation to science, is impossible to miss.

    BTW Ron, I did not use any ad hominem attacks. If I said you were a moron, therefore our arguments are stupid, that would be ad hominem. I said, paraphrasing, that you are making moronic statements and may be a moron and used sarcasm and your own “reasoning” to point out why you FAIL. Your arguments fail on there own demerits. For example, in the proceeding paragraph the fact that I raise the argument that you may be a moron is not an ad hominem attack, but a way to show how your argument is fails any kind of analysis (notice I didnt say rigorous or deep analysis?)

  34. #34 Ron
    February 16, 2009

    But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. -Peter 2:1

  35. #35 anonymouroboros
    February 17, 2009

    Up yours Ron. -Anonymouroboros 11:15 P.M.

  36. #36 Valor Phoenix
    February 17, 2009

    And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

    Genesis 11: 5-7

    Hmm, mine sounds like someone doesn’t want humanity to come together as one in the pursuit of knowledge. Also something about confounding language. I recognize this pattern…

    Yay for random bible quotes! Seriously, I went to http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm and grabbed a random thing from the absurdities list.

  37. #37 god
    February 17, 2009

    God makes the animals and parades them before Adam to see if any would strike his fancy. But none seem to have what it takes to please him. (Although he was tempted to go for the sheep.) After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while. 2:18-20

  38. #38 John Scanlon FCD
    February 17, 2009

    Thanks god, I was just thinking about that bit today; specifically, David Brin’s imaginary Franciscan (in Earth) who identified the naming of ALL the animals as a task unfinished by Adam (interrupted by other events in the Garden) and still requiring to be done, as a sacred mission for mankind. Including the animals on other planets.

    I occasionally get one of several varieties of proselytising Xtians on my tours at the Fossil Centre (not often: they’d have to find and pass through a couple of doors to get to my lab, so there are selective steps involved), and once or twice I’ve brought up the ‘name the animals’ meme to demonstrate that us biology types are really doing the Lord’s work. ‘Course, few religiots have read as far as Chapter 2.

  39. #39 G. Tingey
    February 17, 2009

    askmieke:
    “Science, faith, instinct and intuition are not mutually exclusive.”
    WRONG
    Science and faith are mutually exclusive.
    Instinct & intuition are something else, and I will not comment on those.
    BUT
    Faith is DEFINED as: “Belief without evidence”
    Whereas science is a process BASED on evidence, and evidence, and more evidence …..
    Now, can you see how this could cause, shall we say, a few problems?

    Particularly when “the faithful” state that: “God/our church/our priest/allah/Mohammed says this, so it MUST be true…”
    And then scientific enquiry shows that this is not the case, as in Galilei, Bruno, evolution (fundie muslims won’t accept it either …) Vavilov etc …..

    Oh, and Ron is quoting an “authority” which has NO RELEVANCE in a science discussion.
    Unless he wants to believe in the Earth as portrayed in and before Job, where it is plainly NOT spherical, and the waters are kept in special places …
    Erm, thought not!

  40. #40 Rhys Llwyd
    February 17, 2009

    What Atheists fail to understand is that Darwin only challenged the literal belief of the story of Genesis, Darwin didn’t put forward any convincing theory to disprove the divine completely. This is the reason why leading scientist Sir John Houghton, who is an evangelical man of integrity, could say: ‘Creationism is an incredible pain in the neck, neither honest nor useful, and the people who advocate it have no idea how much damage they are doing to the credibility of belief.’

    Personally I have no problem in believing in miracles. If God created the world in six literal twenty-four-hour days then it was a miracle. The problem with creationists like Ken Ham and the people over at Answers in Genesis is that they try and use the laws of science to “prove” the literal story of Genesis. But if they ever succeed (which they won’t) the only thing they’ll accomplish is not prove God but rather to disprove God’s miracle!

  41. #41 Lorax
    February 17, 2009

    I believe that Ron is threatening some of us. Not in an up front kind of way, more like a my daddy is gonna get you little kid kind of way. I think this makes at least the third time you exhibited tendencies associated with an intellectual 8 year old.

    Dear Lord, my name is Ron. I am one of your staunchest defenders. I know its a sin to murder so I was wondering if maybe you could smite some people who don’t agree with me. Please, pretty please? Oh and I love me some baby jesus and all too. Amen

  42. #42 ArchangelChuck
    February 17, 2009

    Rhys: Who cares? It isn’t science to replace one unknown, the origin of the universe, with another, God. That explains nothing.

  43. #43 Valor Phoenix
    February 17, 2009

    What AtheistsCreationists fail to understand is that Darwin only challenged the literal belief of the story of Genesis, Darwin didn’t put forward any convincing theory to disprove the divine completely.

    Yes yes, anyone having read Darwin is quite aware that he skirted the issue of divinity and even descent of man quite a bit. He just killed ID 130 years before it was created by tackling Paley’s Watchmaker and the complexity of the Eye. Not to worry, Creationism will eventually catch up with Darwin, and _then_ they get to play with the Modern Synthesis.

    The rest is quite spot on. Creationism is bad for science, but the Library of Alexandra is now virtual, it can never be burned down again. The progress of science can only be slowed by hurting education and funding.

    Religion on the other hand, creationism does a lot to muddy the waters of faith and gnosis. In the end creationism is going to do more damage to faith than the science it was created to remove.

    Short version is this is a science based world, and teaching something so easy falsifiable and linking it to faith is a brain-dead proposition. Despite this, the creationists do it for the short term gain since anything taken on faith isn’t immediately questioned.

  44. #44 Spiv
    February 17, 2009

    “Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.”" -Luke, 14:25-26

    Do you hate your family, Ron? Why?

    “And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.” -Lev, 27:6

    Would you sell your children as slaves, Ron? Are women worth less than men? Why?

    If the bible is the true word of god, why are you so adverse to following its every command?

    To paraphrase Asimov, any person of reason cannot disclude the vague possibility of a deity. However, it is dishonest to say that that possibility is anything but roughly zero.

    If roughly zero is what you want to believe in, great. Just don’t expect a serious discussion of it during a science lecture.

  45. #45 Jason Tannery
    September 3, 2011

    Refer to website address http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html#Q02 pertaining to question 2 (Isn’t evolution just a theory that remains unproven?) that was raised.

    It is mentioned in the 3rd line of the paragraph that a science theory stands until proven wrong – It is never proven correct. This statement is a bit ridiculous in the sense that a theory might come from someone’s imagination through logical link among all the facts and yet nothing could disapprove this theory and it could be established to be part of the science.

    Charles Darwin mentioned that human beings would have evolved from apes. Some might say that human beings could be originated from bears or polar bears since these animals also have almost the same physical bodies as human beings. Both bears as well as polar bears could hold things with their hands. Some might well argue that their physical bodies changed to adapt to their physical bodies to the ultimate form of human beings. Why was it that Charles Darwin needed to suggest that human beings would have evolved from apes when bears and polar bears could be used to be another source to support his theory? All these queries prove that his theory was simply from his own imagination

    As Charles Darwin mentioned that human beings would have evolved from apes to accept his so-called, evolution theory, which was the ancestors of the apes? Which was the predecessor of apes? Or in other words, there would be a time when plants would evolve to animals through the process of evolution? Could we find evolution theory be a little ridiculous in which plants could develop to the extreme to animals?

    Refer to the website address http://www.allaboutscience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution.htm pertaining to the evolution theory.

    The following is the extract under the sub-title of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution – The Premise:

    “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers — all related…”

    Great to know that birds and the bananas have the common ancestor. Many queries have to be raised pertaining to their common ancestor: Which was the predecessor of birds and bananas? Which animal was the best to be the predecessor of birds in order to be evolved to the ultimate birds? Which animal that had the beak and feathers as the same as birds to be placed as the predecessor of birds? If you would mention that there were either Pteranodon or Pterodactyl or Petinosaurus or Quetzalcoatlus or Rhamporphydon or Archaeopteryx or Avisaurus or Piksi or Confiucionornis or Haopterus or Microraptor or Rahonavis or The Pterosaur or Rhamphorhynchus, then a question will be raised that who was the predecessor of any one of these dinosaurs? Why was it so? How was it happened?

    Birds and bananas are two different sources and yet Charles Darwin’s theory supports that they have the common ancestor. Further questions have to be raised: What made the common ancestor to stream out into two entire different groups and that is one could not be stationed at a place (such as, plants) and another is movable (such as, birds that could fly around). To allow common ancestor to evolve into plants and to station at one area would simply restrict its movement. Don’t you find it as poor redevelopment as going backward instead of evolving or advancing.

    As Charles Darwin’s theory supports that birds and bananas have their common ancestor, what would be the proof that they have the same ancestor despite all their features and functions are different?

  46. #46 NJ
    September 3, 2011

    JT@45:

    As Charles Darwin’s theory supports that birds and bananas have their common ancestor, what would be the proof that they have the same ancestor despite all their features and functions are different?

    DNA.

    Of course, someone with half an IQ point could have figured this out. This hypothesis that you lack even that much intelligence is further supported by your choice to revive a more than 2 year old thread.

  47. #47 hoary puccoon
    September 4, 2011

    Jason Tannery–

    You are aware, right, that Charles Darwin was a nineteenth century scientist?

    At the time Darwin wrote, no hominid fossils from sub-Saharan Africa had been discovered. There was no known way to find the age of the earth. The word “gene” had not even been invented.

    Nobody knew genes were made of DNA until around the end of World War II–more than sixty years after Darwin died. The first hominid fossil from Africa was discovered in the 1920′s. The first dating method using the half-life of a radioactive isotope was worked out around 1940. The age of th earth wasn’t worked out until the 1950′s. There were puzzling questions about the distribution of modern species that weren’t answered until the development of plate tectonics in the 1960′s. The near-universal genetic code wasn’t worked out until the end of the 1960′s. The discovery of hox genes that showed the common ancestry of all animals came in the 1980′s. The amazingly similar genomes of chimps and humans were worked out in the 2000′s.

    And all you’ve got is, ‘Darwin might have said we were related to bears’? Yes, he might have– and his friend Thomas Huxley, who was a superb comparative anatomist, would have mopped the floor with him. Huxley could already prove we are closely related to apes back in the 1860′s.

    The point, here, is that scientists have been *trying* to disprove evolution for over a hundred and fifty years. And time after time, some new, totally-unexpected discovery has come to light, that supports evolutionary theory even more strongly.

    And then you come in with questions that have been studied for years, and expect that somehow the whole, intellectual edifice will crumble from some simple question you imagine no one else has asked. You’re like a fly buzzing around Pike’s Peak– annoying for the rest of us, but highly unlikely to knock down Pike’s Peak.