Meet Your Neighbors - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Aug 24, 2005

RE: Meet Your Neighbors

Date: Aug 24, 2005

sugar baby wrote:

stinky cheese man wrote: If the "designer" were "intelligent," we'd have been born with teeth that don't rot the designer did see to it that we have teeth. It's up to us to take care of them. you're expecting far too much from the designer. he also gave us a brain, you know.

Is the designer also responsible for severe birth defects?

Date: Aug 24, 2005

Thanks, Michael Fitzgerald, for another reasonable letter.

H.A.--Don't tolerate 'intolerance'

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050824/OPINION03/508240320/1014/OPINION

Date: Aug 24, 2005

Biology Teacher wrote:

I agree with you about math, chemistry, and physics but I take exception to "biology as memorization" because when it is taught well, it is all about understanding complex conceptual material.

Thanks Biology Teacher. I would like to understand this better. My experience is that the students may know the "words" concerning the complex cycles etc., but not what the words mean. For example energy balance or conservation is discussed, but the students don't know what energy is or how to measure it. In my opinion they learn this as a story because the precise definition of energy and its measurement is the subject of physics and chemistry.

Thanks you your help in replying to some of the misinformed. My area isn't Biology.

Date: Aug 24, 2005

Science 099 (formerly Science 101) wrote:

Scientist, we may have to start at the beginning (no pun intended). Do you understand the difference between an experimental study and a correlational (observational) study as they pertain to cause-effect relationships?

Yes, I do. What is your point here, Science 099? Please lay out for me what you see as a problem. I hope with the help of Biology Teacher we will be able to clear things up.

Date: Aug 24, 2005

Scientist wrote:

Thanks Biology Teacher. I would like to understand this better. My experience is that the students may know the "words" concerning the complex cycles etc., but not what the words mean. For example energy balance or conservation is discussed, but the students don't know what energy is or how to measure it. In my opinion they learn this as a story because the precise definition of energy and its measurement is the subject of physics and chemistry.
Thanks you your help in replying to some of the misinformed. My area isn't Biology.

This is purely my

here, but I think what "Scientist" is observing is because of the sequencing that is typically imposed on high school science curricula. Physics tends to be reserved for the senior year, because it is viewed as "math intensive" (probably because few folks want to teach physics conceptually anyway) & biology is taught at the 9th or 10th grade level because it is viewed as something that can be taught conceptually without a lot of math that the kids haven't yet encountered.

Again, I'm just basing this on my own experience, but physics is conceptually the simplest science. Math aside, the principles are easy to demonstrate, replicate consistently & aren't full of exceptions & special cases. Chemistry gets messier, since a basic knowledge of physics comes into play. And biology is the messiest of all (literally & figuratively), because both physics & chemistry are the basics upon which biology relies.

The legendary "rigor" of physics as a discipline has more to do with the math tools employed than with the fundamental concepts.

As an example, let's try a "thought experiment" in pedagogy. First, try to conceive of presenting the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in a one hour lecture. Sure, you could probably spend a semester on it, but I daresay you could do it justice in 60 minutes with the students getting the idea. Now, try to conceive of doing the same for the concept of energy budgets in ecosystems. And oh yeah, you can't use the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, since the students haven't had physics yet!

BTW, I picked the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, because creationists are fond of trotting it out. In their view, life violates this Law & hence must be divinely created. In truth, lifeforms work like crazy (and I'm using "work" as a physicist defines it) to delay the onset of entropy. And as we all know, the 2nd Law really only applies to closed systems...

We teach science bass-ackwards.

Date: Aug 24, 2005

Invictus wrote:

Scientist wrote: Thanks Biology Teacher. I would like to understand this better. My experience is that the students may know the "words" concerning the complex cycles etc., but not what the words mean. For example energy balance or conservation is discussed, but the students don't know what energy is or how to measure it. In my opinion they learn this as a story because the precise definition of energy and its measurement is the subject of physics and chemistry.

Invictus wrote: Thanks you your help in replying to some of the misinformed. My area isn't Biology. This is purely my here, but I think what "Scientist" is observing is because of the sequencing that is typically imposed on high school science curricula. Physics tends to be reserved for the senior year, because it is viewed as "math intensive" (probably because few folks want to teach physics conceptually anyway) & biology is taught at the 9th or 10th grade level because it is viewed as something that can be taught conceptually without a lot of math that the kids haven't yet encountered. Again, I'm just basing this on my own experience, but physics is conceptually the simplest science. Math aside, the principles are easy to demonstrate, replicate consistently & aren't full of exceptions & special cases. Chemistry gets messier, since a basic knowledge of physics comes into play. And biology is the messiest of all (literally & figuratively), because both physics & chemistry are the basics upon which biology relies. The legendary "rigor" of physics as a discipline has more to do with the math tools employed than with the fundamental concepts. As an example, let's try a "thought experiment" in pedagogy. First, try to conceive of presenting the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in a one hour lecture. Sure, you could probably spend a semester on it, but I daresay you could do it justice in 60 minutes with the students getting the idea. Now, try to conceive of doing the same for the concept of energy budgets in ecosystems. And oh yeah, you can't use the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, since the students haven't had physics yet! BTW, I picked the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, because creationists are fond of trotting it out. In their view, life violates this Law & hence must be divinely created. In truth, lifeforms work like crazy (and I'm using "work" as a physicist defines it) to delay the onset of entropy. And as we all know, the 2nd Law really only applies to closed systems... We teach science bass-ackwards.

Excellent post, Invictus. You continue to make my points much better than I. What you say here is precisely the reason the I.D. folks attack Biology. Even though Stellar Evolution in Astrophysics contradicts the bible you will seldom hear attacks on that part of science.

While I'm here I will relate a recent discussion I had. The person reversed the attack on evolution by pointing out the religious are not reading their bible correctly. This person said, "The bible doesn't say god created man. The bible says god molded man from clay and breathed life into him." I will have to check my bible, but this sounds more like evolution to me that what the "creationists" claim the bible says.

Date: Aug 24, 2005

Scientist wrote:

Science 099 (formerly Science 101) wrote: Scientist, we may have to start at the beginning (no pun intended). Do you understand the difference between an experimental study and a correlational (observational) study as they pertain to cause-effect relationships?

Scientist wrote: Yes, I do. What is your point here

My point is that thusfar you've cited only observational data (e.g., "Are you implying that scientist haven't observed new species evolve?" and "Do you think geologist don't know how mountains form because no one has observed a mountain evolve?"

Date: Aug 24, 2005

Science 099 (formerly Science 101 wrote:

My point is that thusfar you've cited only observational data (e.g., "Are you implying that scientist haven't observed new species evolve?" and "Do you think geologist don't know how mountains form because no one has observed a mountain evolve?"

Er, would you care to explain what sort of "data" isn't ultimately "observational?"

Date: Aug 24, 2005

Science 099 (formerly Science 101 wrote:

Scientist wrote:"Are you implying that scientist haven't observed new species evolve? . . Do you think geologist don't know how mountains form because no one has observed a mountain evolve?

Everybody I know acknowledges that the homo sapien form has changed over the years. Homo Sapien is now taller that before. Even a farmer can see the landscape, streams, and other physical forms on his land change over time. It doesn't take a scientist to observe those things.

Date: Aug 24, 2005

Science 099 (formerly Science 101 wrote:

Scientist wrote: Science 099 (formerly Science 101) wrote: Scientist, we may have to start at the beginning (no pun intended). Do you understand the difference between an experimental study and a correlational (observational) study as they pertain to cause-effect relationships? Scientist wrote: Yes, I do. What is your point here My point is that thusfar you've cited only observational data (e.g., "Are you implying that scientist haven't observed new species evolve?" and "Do you think geologist don't know how mountains form because no one has observed a mountain evolve?"

Science 099, I will have to say I still don't understand and hope Biology Teacher can help out here. I note that you never answered the two questions I asked. I note that your use of the word "observational" as equivalent to " correlational" in respect to this is not standard as far as I'm comcerned. Is this something new from the Discovery Institute?

The "observations" I was speaking of are "experimental" because the situation was predicted from the theory before the observations were made. These are not of the order of statistical correclations as used in the social sciences where cause-effect relations are difficult to determine.

Date: Aug 24, 2005

Time Warp wrote:

Everybody I know acknowledges that the homo sapien form has changed over the years. Homo Sapien is now taller that before. Even a farmer can see the landscape, streams, and other physical forms on his land change over time. It doesn't take a scientist to observe those things.

Yes, Time Warp, but evolution says the species will change over time. Every species evolved from another with which it can no longer mate. The I.D. people like to talk about Microevolution and Macroevolution. No one I know of has a problem with the microevolution that you described above. The I.D. people can't tolerate macroevolution.

Date: Aug 24, 2005

Science 099 (formerly Science 101 wrote:

My point is that thusfar you've cited only observational data (e.g., "Are you implying that scientist haven't observed new species evolve?" and "Do you think geologist don't know how mountains form because no one has observed a mountain evolve?"

Perhaps if we understood what sort of experimental studies would interest you? Those that synthesize organic compounds from inorganic materials? Those that result in self-replicating, metabolizing protobionts? Those that synthesize catalytic compounds and nucleic acids? Those that manipulate external conditions in order to induce mutation, subsequent selection, and speciation? Those that manipulate genetic composition in order to evaluate reproductive survival in various environments? As I've acknowledged before, I am neither a scholar nor a researcher but I can provide you with some of the basics. Please, help us help you.

Date: Aug 24, 2005

Biology Teacher wrote:

Please, help us help you.

Biology Teacher, for some reason you and Scientist seem to be trying to convince me that the theory of evolution is the most parsinomious way to explain the biological changes that have taken place within species over the past millions of years. Thank you very much, but your help is quite unnecessary. You might be surprised if you were aware of my long standing formal academic knowledge and interest in the subject. I am aware of no way other than biological evolution to explain those changes. In fact, I believe that the theory of evolution is more than a theory. It almost has the requisites necessary to be called a law. I think what bothers Scientist is that I subscribe to the law of evolution but at the same time I maintain religious convictions requiring faith. Until I found this board I never even heard the term intelligent design. That term sounds like a cover-up term for evolution and a way to sneak religion into the public schools. The term intelligent design should probably be renamed political design. I suspect that some comments made on this thread were motivated more by an anti-religious bias than by a legitimate pro-science curiosity.

Date: Aug 24, 2005

Science 099 (formerly Science 101 wrote:

Biology Teacher wrote: Please, help us help you. Biology Teacher, for some reason you and Scientist seem to be trying to convince me that the theory of evolution is the most parsinomious way to explain the biological changes that have taken place within species over the past millions of years. Thank you very much, but your help is quite unnecessary. You might be surprised if you were aware of my long standing formal academic knowledge and interest in the subject. I am aware of no way other than biological evolution to explain those changes. In fact, I believe that the theory of evolution is more than a theory. It almost has the requisites necessary to be called a law. I think what bothers Scientist is that I subscribe to the law of evolution but at the same time I maintain religious convictions requiring faith. Until I found this board I never even heard the term intelligent design. That term sounds like a cover-up term for evolution and a way to sneak religion into the public schools. The term intelligent design should probably be renamed political design. I suspect that some comments made on this thread were motivated more by an anti-religious bias than by a legitimate pro-science curiosity.

This is really a surprising response, Science 099. You never responded to most of the questions I asked, but made statements which were very vague. It's hard for me to believe you never heard on I.D. after the presidents statement and all of the letters to the editors in papers just about everywhere.

I would appreciate you pointing out to me what I said that gave you the impression I was saying anything about your religious convictions. How would I even know what your religious belief are?

Date: Aug 24, 2005

Science 099 (formerly Science 101 wrote:

Biology Teacher wrote: Please, help us help you. Biology Teacher, for some reason you and Scientist seem to be trying to convince me that the theory of evolution is the most parsinomious way to explain the biological changes that have taken place within species over the past millions of years. Thank you very much, but your help is quite unnecessary. You might be surprised if you were aware of my long standing formal academic knowledge and interest in the subject. I am aware of no way other than biological evolution to explain those changes. In fact, I believe that the theory of evolution is more than a theory. It almost has the requisites necessary to be called a law. I think what bothers Scientist is that I subscribe to the law of evolution but at the same time I maintain religious convictions requiring faith. Until I found this board I never even heard the term intelligent design. That term sounds like a cover-up term for evolution and a way to sneak religion into the public schools. The term intelligent design should probably be renamed political design. I suspect that some comments made on this thread were motivated more by an anti-religious bias than by a legitimate pro-science curiosity.

Like Scientist, I have to admit that I am confused by your string of posts. I was certainly not trying to convince you of anything. You expressed concern that no experimental evidence was being discussed and I simply responded to your post. By the way, I professed my faith in my very first post.

Date: Aug 24, 2005

Biology Teacher wrote:

By the way, I professed my faith in my very first post.

That you did, almost two weeks ago and in a very eloquent way when you said "There is nothing about the origin of life or subsequent evolution that rocks my faith.

Date: Aug 24, 2005

Science 099 (formerly Science 101 wrote:

Biology Teacher, for some reason you and Scientist seem to be trying to convince me that the theory of evolution is the most parsinomious way to explain the biological changes that have taken place within species over the past millions of years. ...

After reading you post again very carefully I discovered this "within species" statement. This has never been the issue even with Intelligent Design and Scientific Creationism. It has always been the evolution of one species from another. The reason is that would mean that humans evolved from or through other animals that were not humans. This is the whole point of "Origin of the Species".

I still don't understand your position, Science 099. You seem to weave and duck a lot. No offense, but it isn't an efficient way to communicate and learn.

What do you think, Biology Teacher?

Date: Aug 24, 2005

You are more observant than I, Scientist. I wish that I had the knowledge, the words, the clout -- whatever -- to bridge this chasm rather than widen it. I tend to agree with Invictus and the most recent post by our perplexing friend that this entire debate is political, rather than intellectual or even religious, in nature.

Date: Aug 24, 2005

Scientist wrote:

. ... After reading you post again very carefully I discovered this "within species" statement. This has never been the issue even with Intelligent Design and Scientific Creationism. It has always been the evolution of one species from another. The reason is that would mean that humans evolved from or through other animals that were not humans.

Then strike the "within species" phrase if it bothers you. I knew something I said would meet with your displeasure. I'm preparing for a roadtrip and I must pack and then retire early tonight. Hopefully I'll dream about the S.S. Beagle instead of the cost of gasoline. Maybe the best and the brightest will have resolved this matter before I return.

Date: Aug 24, 2005

Biology Teacher wrote:

You are more observant than I, Scientist. I wish that I had the knowledge, the words, the clout -- whatever -- to bridge this chasm rather than widen it. I tend to agree with Invictus and the most recent post by our perplexing friend that this entire debate is political, rather than intellectual or even religious, in nature.

Biology Teacher, sometimes I get the feeling that they want to keep the chasm and widen it if possible. I don't understand why. I always thought people knew that religious belief was based on faith not logical, objective evidence. When did that change?

In Science 009's last post the microevolution restriction is dropped without fuss, as if it really didn't matter. I'm at a lost as to what today’s discussion was about. Thanks for keeping things clear for us not formally trained in Biology.

Date: Aug 24, 2005

Science 099 (formely Science 101) wrote:

Then strike the "within species" phrase if it bothers you. I knew something I said would meet with your displeasure. I'm preparing for a roadtrip and I must pack and then retire early tonight. Hopefully I'll dream about the S.S. Beagle instead of the cost of gasoline. Maybe the best and the brightest will have resolved this matter before I return.

I hope you have a safe and pleasant trip, Science 009.

.

Date: Aug 24, 2005

Scientist wrote:

I hope you have a safe and pleasant trip, Science 009. .

thankyouverymuch

Date: Aug 25, 2005

Church of Flying Spaghetti Monster weighs in on Intelligent Design.

Date: Aug 25, 2005

Invictus wrote:

Church of Flying Spaghetti Monster weighs in on Intelligent Design.

Thanks for the great link, Invictus! I definitely need to share this with others.

Date: Aug 25, 2005

Scientist wrote:

Disk Q wrote:
Lost in this debate is the fact that there is nothing in our world that can, in reality, be separated from anything else. Religion, science, politics, business, literature, art, music, medicine, law, etc., etc., etc., are all intertwined in our society and (in many instances) to attempt to discuss one of these without discussing some of the others is pretty futile. I understand that scientists wish to keep the debate on a purely scientific level, and that would be OK for a science classroom. However, Larry King Live is not a science classroom. It is a microcosm of our society where all of the aforementioned topics arise and are discussed, sometimes simultaneously.

I find this interesting, Disk Q. However I must respectfully disagree with this in part. I don't think science (based on objective evidence and precise logical arguments using mathematics) has any connection to religion (dogma based on faith). These are two different methods of thought. One is as old as Man and the other is relatively new.
The problem, I believe, is the average public doesn't realize the scientist isn't using 'regular English language" but a very precise, objectively defined language. The words seem the same on the surface, but they are not. This is made very clear, for example, when each side uses the word "Theory".
But I would be extremely interested in hearing how you think science and religion are related. I'm sorry if I may have misunderstood your point.
Finally, don't you think the debate should be kept "strictly on a scientific level" if we are discussing what should be taught in a science class? Are we going to ask the public what to teach in medical schools too? Why not? Where is the difference?
For me the debate is very technical because there is no debate over this in science. The debate occurs in public only because people confuse and conflate very technical issues.

I have read your posts on this thread thoroughly. I understand your position. You have misunderstood my post. What I said was "Why do you expect a purely scientific debate from Larry King Live?" At the very least, King is not a scientist himself, regardless of who the other panelists were, and we all know that he can't keep his mouth shut on any issue.

What I said was that King's show mirrors water cooler debates that take place all over this country. I would venture to guess that the average US citizen uses multiple factors in forming opinions, and that those opinions, while not based totally on science, have elements of religion, politics, science, law, etc., behind them. This is the connection between science and religion: average folks struggle with how to form opinions when they are receiving input from many sources. Finally, if you (or anyone for that matter) are disappointed, aggravated, or otherwise put off by the discussion on the King program, then I think you're expecting too much from a TV talk show.

Date: Aug 25, 2005

Disk Q wrote:

I have read your posts on this thread thoroughly. I understand your position. You have misunderstood my post. What I said was "Why do you expect a purely scientific debate from Larry King Live?" At the very least, King is not a scientist himself, regardless of who the other panelists were, and we all know that he can't keep his mouth shut on any issue. What I said was that King's show mirrors water cooler debates that take place all over this country. I would venture to guess that the average US citizen uses multiple factors in forming opinions, and that those opinions, while not based totally on science, have elements of religion, politics, science, law, etc., behind them. This is the connection between science and religion: average folks struggle with how to form opinions when they are receiving input from many sources. Finally, if you (or anyone for that matter) are disappointed, aggravated, or otherwise put off by the discussion on the King program, then I think you're expecting too much from a TV talk show.

Thanks for the explanation, Disk Q. I now understand and agree with what you said.

Date: Aug 26, 2005

Interesting article in the Chronicle today reports that over 120 profs at Iowa State signed a statement indicating they reject all attempts to promote Intelligent Design as scientific endeavor.

Date: Aug 26, 2005

Chronicler wrote:

Interesting article in the Chronicle today reports that over 120 profs at Iowa State signed a statement indicating they reject all attempts to promote Intelligent Design as scientific endeavor.

Thanks Chronicler. Can you give a link?

Date: Aug 26, 2005

www.chronicle.com

Front page summary but you need a subscription.