Schools - Page 4

Passion24 · 09-17-2006, 02:19 AM

I don't think creation related material should be taught at all.It should be up to the parents to teach their child in that regard.That way no one has a reason to complain.If it is even mentioned in schools it should just be a simple there are many theories on how we was created and run down the list.If the students are interested they can research more into it or heck make it extra bonus homework to study all the theories.That way they come to the conclusion on their own on what truly happened then having it forcefed to them.

Grant · 09-17-2006, 11:41 AM

I don't think any ONE theory should be taught at schools. If we're going to teach religious creation ideas, we should teach them all. However, we shouldn't be teaching a theory thats been disproven. Yes, I'm talking about the theory of Evolution and yes, it has been disproven.

A lot of people say its "unlikely" but thats not even the half of it. Considering all the probabilities, the odds of a single-celled organism falling together by pure chance are 1/10 to the 78,000... Here's an article that explains it very well:
Quodlibet Online Journal: The Theory of Evolution Revisited - by Dr. William L. Johnson & Dr. Annabel M. Johnson

DizzyDee · 09-18-2006, 03:49 PM

A little bit about scholarship - a doctorate in Education does not make anyone an expert in statistical analysis nor evolutionary biology. Nor does an article written for and published by a theological publication make it eligible for debate among scientists.

Good scholarship is published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Peer-reviewed meaning that experts in the areas of the topic (in this case experts on evolutionary biology, statisticians, Archaeologists, and geneticists) have the ability to critique the arguments of the researcher/scholar and keep him honest in terms of source materials, recent findings, and conclusions.

Grant, the article you posted was interesting, but Dr. William Johnson is not statistician or a biological scientist and his doctorate is in Education - not science, being a chemistry teacher. As for his wife, Dr. Annabelle Johnson, her degree appears to be in Education as well - correct me if I am wrong and point me in the direction where I can confirm their credentials. I google both of them and found that they do have some academic publications to their names, but it is in the area of their expertise, as it should be, in Education and School Administration, and their academic article are in peer-reviewed journals.

In the article you referenced us to the authors' bias towards their faith is obvious and the scientific sources outdated - more recent source materials seem to indicate they are more philosophical and theological bent rather than based in the "hard" sciences. Show me a decent, peer-reviewed scientific article that debunks evolution on the basis of statistics (preferably by an expert in the field) and I will be all ears.

Trust me, if someone were able to thoroughly debunk evoluation using the scientific method it would be in headlines all over the world and would make the scientist absolutely famous.

I don't mean to sound like I am attacking the messager, but I know a little bit about academics and evaluating sources. I am neither an expert in statistics or biology, but if I'm going to take someone's word on the subject it will be from the right academic community. No offense meant.

penguinmama · 09-18-2006, 04:23 PM

DizzyDee - have you ever heard the term "irreducible complexity"? It is that concept that disproves evolution decidedly. There are many, many things that, if it took thousands of years to "develop" them, the creatures involved could not exist because they would have died out before the things could develop. Especially notable in this category are things like giraffes (their sponge-brains), bombadier beetles (their chemicals that must be separated until just before ejected), and humans.

Nevertheless, based on the original discussion (schools) - if they are going to teach one theory of origin, IMO they need to teach all applicable ones. Evolution is a theory, as is creation, since none of us were *there* to see it happen.

Grant · 09-18-2006, 09:28 PM

You pointed out that they don't have degrees in statistics but that doesnt hold a lot of relevance to their article. even if they are christian, it doesnt make their calculations incorrect. the listed a page of sources... i suggest you look to the calculations.

DizzyDee · 09-19-2006, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Evolution is a theory, as is creation, since none of us were *there* to see it happen.

As has been pointed out before, evolution is a scientific theory. Creation is not a scientific theory - therefore it has no place in a science classroom. However, I am not opposed to it being taught in a World Religions class.

Penquinmam, I will look into the "irreducible complexity" concept, and comment later.

Grant, as I already stated. I am no statistician, so I cannot verify their calulations, I did however look into the source material used for the article - most of their sources are outdated or outside the hard sciences. This article is not scientific, but the work of christian apologists.

DizzyDee · 09-19-2006, 10:53 AM

penguinmama said

Quote:

DizzyDee - have you ever heard the term "irreducible complexity"? It is that concept that disproves evolution decidedly.

Check out how thoroughly this concept is being trashed in the world of science. Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe on Intelligent Design

This article critically examines Behe's claims regarding irreducible complexity and his claim that the academic world is silent on the matter of molecular evolution (Behe is a promoter of Intelligent Design and "irreducible complexity", and author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution)

Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility?

In this article the author says this:

Quote:

Most science books for popular audiences focus on the frontiers of knowledge: what do we know, what does it suggest, and where is it likely to take us. In contrast, I would characterize Behe's book as an exposition of the Frontiers of Ignorance: what do we not know, and how can we blind ourselves with that lack of knowledge.

Indeed, that is the whole thesis of Behe's book. A system is labeled "irreducibly complex" if he cannot postulate a workable simpler form for the system. There is no way to prove such a claim.

Here's another one

Quote:

One of Behe's claims is that scientific papers detailing plausible Darwinian models for the evolution of complex biochemical systems are nonexistent. p.179:

There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems.

I hope he corrects this in his next book/edition, since it is so clearly false.

In fact, in another place on this website there is a list of academic articles outlining the research that Behe either completely missed when reviewing the literature for his book or completely left out, because it weakens his argument. The list can be found here. Publish or Perish: Some Published Works on Biochemical Evolution

There are thousands of additional published papers containing solid and detailed evidence of biochemical evolution. Intelligent Design or 'irreductible complexity' are simply sophisticated words for "God of the Gaps" If we can't explain it, then it must be God? I don't think so.

DizzyDee · 09-19-2006, 11:19 AM

Grant,

Check this out

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

This article will explain why your probability numbers do not debunk evolution. The article focuses on explaining the errors in such probability theories. Here is a summary of what the article is about.

Quote:

Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

I will try and walk people through these various errors, and show why it is not possible to do a "probability of abiogenesis" calculation in any meaningful way.

Happy reading everyone! I find the research you are inspiring me to do is fasinating! I'm off to immerse myself in a world of gaining more knowledge.

This is fun, yes I'm a bit of a geek

DizzyDee · 09-19-2006, 04:22 PM

I've created a new thread about the evidences for/against evolution. Let's move the discussion about theories that "debunk" evolution there.

Maggielle · 09-20-2006, 10:39 AM

I had this teacher in High School who said this while teaching this subject:
"There are some that believe the way that Darwin did, which we will discuss in class. There are some that believe in the Big Bang Theory that we will discuss in class. Then there are some that believe in creationism that by law I cannot discuss in class, but if I could I would tell you that these people believe that there is a God that created everything. The End."
I thought it was brilliant because he covered everything without starting a debate or offending everyone.