Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools

[HydrogenBond]

There appears to be a misconception that there are only two alternatives; either evolution "as it", or creationism. In this site, anything not "as is" ,with respect to evolution is called creationism. Many assume it is a dogma that has been cast into stone. There are shades on both sides of existing evolutionary theory.

I applied selective advantage, to the environment created by the social philosophy called evolutionary theory. Let me switch it around so everyone can be more objective.

Say a scientist, or someone so inclined, went into a religious revival with the hope of showing the usefulness of logic and science. This revival is a cult so, adding scientific objectivity is completely progressive for that group. In spite of that, the doctrine of that group will define selective advantage for the members of its group. If you wish to move up the ladder of selective advantage, it requires getting with their program. The scientist would have no selective advantage in that environment, even if he is trying to introduce something progressive which should allow selective advantage. He might be called a "heathen ", which is lower than anyone in the group. This way others in the group will see their selective advantage appear to fall if they listen to the heathen. Then they will become heathens without any environment.

My thinking is, the conservative nature of any group example, to any change, may serve several purposes. To allow any change, would impact the group environment that gives people their selective advantage. The same cult people would have no selective advantage in a science community. For the group to drift toward science, amounts to going in the opposite direction of their selective advantage. If we assume selective advantage is the goal of evolution, going in the opposite direction will create a defensive reaction.

The overall logic of this may reflect the brain creating an internal environment, for the group, reinforced by the group, until genetics makes this second nature. The brain creates an internal environment within the biochemistry of the group for DNA adaption which will reflect the group.

It is not as simple as genetic change, birth and maturity in one day, leading to selective advantage. Between genetic/birth there is growing up and learning the ways and hierarchy of the group, which doesn't like too much change. Isolated nature can get stuck in time. But this may serve a purpose, with the brain being sort of selective of selective advantage.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

There appears to be a misconception that there are only two alternatives; either evolution "as it", or creationism. In this site, anything not "as is" ,with respect to evolution is called creationism. Many assume it is a dogma that has been cast into stone. There are shades on both sides of existing evolutionary theory.

I applied selective advantage, to the environment created by the social philosophy called evolutionary theory. Let me switch it around so everyone can be more objective.

Say a scientist, or someone so inclined, went into a religious revival with the hope of showing the usefulness of logic and science. This revival is a cult so, adding scientific objectivity is completely progressive for that group. In spite of that, the doctrine of that group will define selective advantage for the members of its group. If you wish to move up the ladder of selective advantage, it requires getting with their program. The scientist would have no selective advantage in that environment, even if he is trying to introduce something progressive which should allow selective advantage. He might be called a "heathen ", which is lower than anyone in the group. This way others in the group will see their selective advantage appear to fall if they listen to the heathen. Then they will become heathens without any environment.

My thinking is, the conservative nature of any group example, to any change, may serve several purposes. To allow any change, would impact the group environment that gives people their selective advantage. The same cult people would have no selective advantage in a science community. For the group to drift toward science, amounts to going in the opposite direction of their selective advantage. If we assume selective advantage is the goal of evolution, going in the opposite direction will create a defensive reaction.

The overall logic of this may reflect the brain creating an internal environment, for the group, reinforced by the group, until genetics makes this second nature. The brain creates an internal environment within the biochemistry of the group for DNA adaption which will reflect the group.

It is not as simple as genetic change, birth and maturity in one day, leading to selective advantage. Between genetic/birth there is growing up and learning the ways and hierarchy of the group, which doesn't like too much change. Isolated nature can get stuck in time. But this may serve a purpose, with the brain being sort of selective of selective advantage.

HB, why do you continue to be obtuse? We are not talking about whether belief in creationism has an advantage for the group. If you belong to a group that kills you if you don't profess to believe in creationism then believing it is an advantage to survival but it doesn't make it real or an accurate description of reality. Belief in fairies can be a selective advantage under the right circumstances but it won't make fairies real. We are talking about what should be taught in school, the truth should be taught in school, evolution is as close the truth as we can get with the available evidence. Creationism is in the same plane as fairies, it has no basis in reality, no reason what so ever to be taught as a reality. Whether or not believing creationism is advantageous to some group or not has nothing to do with the argument.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

If we assume selective advantage is the goal of evolution, going in the opposite direction will create a defensive reaction.

For me, the statement above, which you have continually stated in various ways throughout these threads, sums up the difficulty you have in understanding the priciples of evolutionary theory.

It is improper to describe natural selection as having a *goal*. There is no goal. There is just change over time. Our perception of a goal with respect to natural selection can only be considered in retrospect. Artificial selection is the only form of evolution where there is a goal in mind. But they are our goals, and there is a purpose behind any selective advantage. But this cannot be observed in nature outside of human intervention.

But this is all beside the point of this thread. No matter what inconsistencies or unexplained elements there are with the theory of evolution, the understanding is based in science and is what should be taught in the biology classroom.

The efforts to repackage creationism into something that appears scientific for the sake of injecting it into the science classroom is not only disingenuous, but corrupts the value of understanding genuine science in the minds of children, making them less competitive in the world today.

What does that say in regard to your perspective on selective advantage?

[HydrogenBond]

The efforts to repackage creationism into something that appears scientific for the sake of injecting it into the science classroom is not only disingenuous, but corrupts the value of understanding genuine science in the minds of children, making them less competitive in the world today.

What does that say in regard to your perspective on selective advantage?

This is the point I was making. To be competitive in the world today, requires one adapt to the potentials of the social environment. The social environment sets the constraints of what will have selective advantage. If you don't follow the rules, as you said, culture will not allow you any selective advantage. But evolution, as defined, has nothing to do with progress, just adaptation, to whatever is set up.

Don't get me wrong, creationism is an ancient theory for evolution, before people had modern science for verification. Modern evolutionary theory is progressive relative to this early beginning. But progression is not the basis of modern evolutionary theory, just adaptation. Creationism is making use of this "just adaptation" philosophy. Even if creationism is regressive (old school), evolutionary theory says this is not important to the goal of evolution. I personally believe in progression, as the underlying goal of evolution, with evolutionary theory the most progressive. But if only adaptation is important, and not progression, both are equally possible. Evolutionary theory is being challenged by its own philosophy, which says evolution does not have to mean progression.

Ironically, evolution sees itself as progressive relative to creationism (which it is) and rightfully argues that this progressive science is important to education and the evolution of human culture. Just adaptation to anything, without net forward progress is not enough for culture to evolve, but it won't effect selective advantage. Non progressive only changes the distribution of selective advantage. But the philosophy of evolution says progress is not important to evolution. So this is evolutionary, as defined, since it is spreading and therefore has selective advantage in culture. Evolution says progressive is not part of the goal of evolution.

To me, seeing progress in evolution depends how you look at the data. Evolution began with simple single cellular systems and has culminated with a complex system called humans. This is progress. Along the way, it also went laterally, with some systems not appearing to move as fast forward, or at all. There are two layers.

The question is why a two layer system of narrow progress, sort of the vertical z-axis of an evolutionary pyramid, and a much wider lateral (x,y), where progress is less evident? One possible theory, is based on construction design, where the width of the base defines how high nature can progress vertically. The lateral is the support structure. Evolutionary theory mostly builds laterally, gathering more of the same data, like its philosophy. It is not concerned with the vertical axis, but goes laterally for any elevation. The theory works well in the (x,y) planes. But it seems to suggest it can't build any higher with that base. It is a done deal. If we add more vertically, it may start to sag. Mentioning vertical progress in evolution, gets everyone very nervous since the base is not set up, correctly, to support that much extra weight.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

...To be competitive in the world today, requires one adapt to the potentials of the social environment.
...Modern evolutionary theory is progressive relative to this early beginning.
...I personally believe in progression, as the underlying goal of evolution, with evolutionary theory the most progressive.
...Evolutionary theory is being challenged by its own philosophy, which says evolution does not have to mean progression.
...Ironically, evolution sees itself as progressive relative to creationism (which it is) and rightfully argues that this progressive science is important to ...the evolution of human culture.
...Non progressive only changes the distribution of selective advantage.
...This is progress. Along the way, it also went laterally, with some systems not appearing to move as fast forward, or at all. There are two layers.
...One possible theory, is based on construction design, where the width of the base defines how high nature can progress vertically. ....

HB,
every statement above is nonsense and drivel.
You have made no attempt to defend any of these statements.
Your post is egregiously long for having almost no content.
You are sounding more like a Troll every time you post.
Shape up or ship out.

Pyrotex

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Moderation note: this thread and replies to it have been moved to “General criticism of public school from a biology thread”, because they are not about the teaching of evolution, but discussion about general criticisms of public school

'Hey, looks like corn and tastes like candy! Sonofa..... ' Lewis Black.

I just spoke to my daughter last night who was finally talked into going back to school. She told me she's getting straight A's.

I asked her how much her school loans were. She said, 'about six thousand dollars'.
She's working at Herberger's part time and sharing a piss poor apartment with other young folks her own age. She can't afford a place of her own. She was all happy that her friend got her car running again.

I almost threw up.

She wasn't home schooled like my other kids. She went back to 'public' school.
And now she has to make up for the 12 years that essentially amounted to trying to survive through all of the social bull that goes on in public school. Oh, she learned how to dress pretty and make friends but other than that she learned zip. Well, she's paying the price. As will 98% of all of the other kids she went to school with.

What a complete waste of time. 12 years with nothing to show for it except mounting debt that she'll pay off over the next 20 years.

And you guys are arguing over what should be taught in public school.

I don't want to be too much of a wet blanket but what makes you think any of the kids that are going there even give a shit? Why don't we talk about that? About the fact that whatever goes on in 'public school' results in kids worrying more about how they look that what they learn?

Why don't we talk about the unbelievable disconnect between what public school actually is and what we wish it was and pretend it is.

In my mind, public school is a false promise. It's wrong in every sense, in every way, and it literally destroys 15% of the life of every child subjected to it. Oh the exceptions are there and they allow all of you to maintain the idea that it isn't bullshit, and you can spin it as you will and make it meaningful and that it works.

It doesn't. It still tastes like candy corn.

I am so disgusted with all of us, myself included, that I want to puke. What have we allowed to happen people? And am I the only one angry about it?

[Mymaster]

Some schools in Australia do teach Evolution at school... Well public ones, they usually don't teach religion unless it's a private school. Evolution was/is a very boring subject, either that or the way they taught it last year was extremely bad.

If Evolution is to be taught on a major basis then shouldn't someone figure out a good way in which to teach it? or at least an interesting way in which to teach it?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Mymaster

Some schools in Australia do teach Evolution at school... Well public ones, they usually don't teach religion unless it's a private school. Evolution was/is a very boring subject, either that or the way they taught it last year was extremely bad.

If Evolution is to be taught on a major basis then shouldn't someone figure out a good way in which to teach it? or at least an interesting way in which to teach it?

Check this series out!

'Growing Up in the Universe' Ep 1: Waking Up in...

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by Mymaster

Some schools in Australia do teach Evolution at school...Evolution was/is a very boring subject, either that or the way they taught it last year was extremely bad. ...shouldn't someone figure out a good way in which to teach it? ...

Absolutely!

My middle and high school experience reflects that, too. Of course, back then (60's) even saying the word "evolution" was forbidden, but there were a number of subjects that were boring as all hell.
History
Biology
Civics & Government

I think there is no excuse for these subjects to be "dulled down" so badly that they make teenagers want to puke.

Do I see a pattern here? What if history is made boring so kids won't poke and pry into the embarrassing or controversial facts? What if parents don't want their kids to know about the bloody religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries? Or the fact that our Founding Fathers weren't religious? What if parents don't want biology to appear "interesting" so that their kids might be attracted to evolution? What if parents don't want their kids to understand the "other" viewpoints (liberal/conservative) and be tempted to "switch"?

[vanamoinen1]

I don't think the scientific community does an adequate job in addressing the problem of the word "theory" in the sense that we use and understand this word in a specific way which is counter to the way the layman understands and uses this word. Whereas we may use "theory" in a science-based argot to provide an explanation of a reality which is illustrated through observation of empirical phenomena, the layman hears "theory" to mean we are being speculative or fanciful etc. As a consequence, when new observations/constructs are incorporated into evolutionary theory, the science-based community has no problem understanding that this means a refinement of the theory, whereas to the layman this can mean "oops, we had it wrong the previous time."

Two issues also seem to get hijacked in the creationism/evolution argument: time and scale. Creationists (and let's be specific: CHRISTIAN creationists--the Hindu creationists at least get the timeline of things to the right order of magnitude) ridicule evolution by imposing the biblical timeline of something like 10,000 years to the earth's how-many-billion years of life. They also show a fundamental lack of understanding of basic scientific/mathematical concepts including the mole, probability/statistics and geography. Were I to believe that the world was only 10,000 years old and that only countable living objects exist, I'd probably have to buy into their arguments too.

This type of ignorance is dangerous. Not circle the wagons dangerous, but insidiously dangerous to our technological future. In a recent interview on NPR, Chinese educators noted that teaching methods in the US emphasizing analysis and experimentation over rote memory are our strength but that our teaching can be content poor, especially in maths and sciences. Make no doubt: the Chinese have no problem incorporating new pedagogical tools into their schools and the Chinese educators noted that content in most European and in all developed Asian school systems is already much richer in maths and sciences than are US schools. This is a danger to our future competitiveness.

Side-issue: In the meantime, we have an interesting problem which ties back to Texas--Texas is such a large player in the schoolbook market that publishers have been known to remove material from textbooks to avoid potential lawsuits. This redacted material includes material which contradicts the religious notions of Texas' largely religiously-conservative population. As a consequence of Texas' out-sized influence, the textbooks which get sent to a geographical area outside of Texas (such as those utilized by entire state school systems) will be deficient in science/maths and will "un"educate students over a broad geographical scope.

This word "theory" lies at the heart of the problem since it is definitional--imagine any contract in which a key definitional term is not agreed to--my lawyer side smells business. So the q is how do we make the definition better-understood outside of the scientific community?