Another excellent post Professor Judd.  It is indeed a frightening phenomena occurring in the USA.  I heard someone describe it as the American Taliban.

Scholar wrote:

---

 Please note that you have not provided the reference about Dawin so all can see if your intrpretation of what was said is correct.

---

Sorry, Scholar, I am not the one who brought up the topic of Darwin. That was another poster who said "Darwin does suggest that men may have evolved from apes. Having read it myself, I can tell you that it is there."

To me that seemed like an "appeal to authority" in support of a theory.

 

Scientist,

I am sorry that you misunderstood what I wrote.

Fact: Darwin himself DID in fact write that men could have evolved from apes. He offered it as a natural extension of the theory of evolution.

When science teachers take that one piece out of context and run with it, you see social backlash. There is no concrete evidence to support his assertion. I was not confusing these arguments. Rather, I was juxtaposing them. Perhaps I should have chosen other diction in my opinion.

I agree (and wrote as much above) that evolution rightly describes the changes that species undergo through time. I also believe that evolution and religion can coexist, so long as teachers of evolution stick to presenting facts as facts and theories as theories. There's a huge amount of scientific research that supports evolution's explanation of change. Who can reasonably argue that nothing ever changes? Likewise, evolution puts forth no "cause" for the change, save environmental or survival issues. Who is to say that these changes couldn't be part of a greater plan? Of course, there is no suggestion here that the teacher delve into the issues of faith.

As for proving or disproving theories, I seem to remember that some of Einstein's theories were proven as technology advanced to catch up with his theories. No, scientist, some theories can be proven. Shelby Thames probably said, "I bet if I take [ingredient X] out of this paint that it wouldn't stink!" You see how that worked out.


Finally, you seem caught up in a misunderstanding of "theory" and "fact." They are very simple terms. I am not confused, and my logic is just fine. You are the one who is playing semantics games to avoid discussing the fact that presenting an opinion (regardless of how much suggestive evidence is available) is illegitimate scholarship.

Orderly Universe wrote:

---

...But it does seem that an objective instructor would simply point out that evolution speaks only of change over time and says nothing about what started it all. ...

---

O.U., that is in the definition of what the theory of evolution is about.  Origins shouldn't even enter unless the course discusses origins.  There is a scientific theory about origins that is just in the formulative stages at this time and in nowhere near as established as evolution.  In fact I think it is so weak as far as evidence supporting it I doubt it is ever taught in high school.  But I don't know for sure so those who know please correct me.  But I still don't think I.D. comes close to a scientific theory of origins.  (Intelligence isn't even defined.)

I hope we don't have to now discuss the Big Bang theory? 

 

Scholar/Scientist/Orderly Universe:

In The Descent of Man, Darwin paints a picture of the similarities between men and apes and stops just short of making the "men from monkeys" claim. That's the reference for those who claim I'm appealing to authority or some such nonsense.

Stephen Judd,

Here is a passage from my post that you replied to. I am interested in how exactly you find this objectionable.

In its most basic sense, evolution is correct...organisms change and adapt over time...witness extinct short-necked giraffes and the heightening of humans over time. On the other hand, there is no concrete proof that humans evolved from apes; there is just suggestive evidence. To present evolution as THE FACTUAL representation of the origin of humans is reckless and irresponsible.

I previously provided the reference to Darwin's work that suggests that men evolved from apes.

I don't think religious factions would have a problem with evolution today had some early scientists and science teachers no sought to press the point of origin of humans. Darwin himself was extremely careful in his conclusions, yet many students' first introduction to evolution was that men came from monkeys. No mention of birds, tortoises, fish, crabs, or other creatures which Darwin documented so carefully.

Suggestive of Nothing wrote:

---

 Finally, you seem caught up in a misunderstanding of "theory" and "fact." They are very simple terms. I am not confused, and my logic is just fine. You are the one who is playing semantics games to avoid discussing the fact that presenting an opinion (regardless of how much suggestive evidence is available) is illegitimate scholarship.

---

I actually am stunned that you say this. It isn't clear to me what exactly it is that separates opinion from "fact" for you.

If you and I both observe a red car, but I distrust the evidence of my senses, I may ask you if you see that the car is red. If you say yes . . . we have some small evidence. That may not yet be fact, but it is at least one step removed from opinion. If I continue this observation and questioning, I may ask a hundred people, two hundred, three million. If I find that my sampling is something like, say 2 million 990,000 to 10,000, then I have very strong, but not conclusive evidence. Obviously I am going to have to not only explain the 10,000 who appear to see something different, biut it is likely I am going to ask myself if there are other ways I can measure this phenomena besides polling people.

At the end of the day, I may still have some percentage -- in fact, it is axiomatic that I will -- of problems with my "theory." But the greater the weight of obervable phenomina and broader the array of testing that supports the idea that the car is "red", the closer I can begin to feel able to act on the observation as though it were true -- as though it were, in fact, "fact."

If my conversion of this "theory" into useful applications continues to confirm that the "fact" of a red car is correct, then I can say, provisionally, that the red car is a "fact" even though there is some small percentage of unexplained anomolies. If this were not true, then science and technology would be paralyzed -- there would be no intellectual activity, there would be very little progress in the world at all.

What the unexplained anomolies call me to do is to remain open to the possibility that the details of my "theory qua fact" may need to be adjusted. And yes, it is just possible that I may have completely screwed up, created bad data, used incorrect criteria, or everyone may simply have been lying to me and I am the vicitim of a giant conspiracy of people who want a joke at my expense -- so perhaps I may actually have a false theory. But the FACT is that the more the evidence stands up over the years, and particularly the more useful applications are found in the applied world, the more the applications are used by others who may use it as a base for extending knowlege -- the longer that happens the less likely it is that this "theory" will reverse itself, even though new and different details may emerge.

The "theory" of evolution had been around for well over a century. It does not only exist in some isolated lab context, it exists in practice. Whole apparati of science are based on it, use its principles -- and successfully --thus offering further confirmation that though it is, strictly speaking, a theory, in practical reality, it is "fact."

 

Scientist wrote:

---

Suggestive of Nothing wrote:
... Finally, you seem caught up in a misunderstanding of "theory" and "fact." They are very simple terms. I am not confused, and my logic is just fine. You are the one who is playing semantics games to avoid discussing the fact that presenting an opinion (regardless of how much suggestive evidence is available) is illegitimate scholarship.

I'm using the scientific meaning of theory.  Please show me where I had a misunderstanding.  I clearly showed how these words were not being used correctly when it was stated "evolution is only a theory".  In science "opinion" not back up with evidence is not scholarship.  In what field do you consider it "illegitimate scholarship"?

---

Again, you misunderstand my statement. I am not pushing for ID or creationism. I am merely stating (and have been all along) that while evolution explains changes well but origins of humans not so well. Those who attempt to use evolution to explain human origins are standing on thin ice; however, evolution cannot be disassociated from origins of humans because of Darwin's later works.

Had some scientists not pushed evolution's theory of human origins as fact, the backlash against evolution would not be as great today. Using a classroom to advance such poorly supported ideas as fact is illegitimate, regardless of whether it's creationism, ID, evolution, or whatever "scientific" name you choose for your theory.

stephen judd wrote:

---

 If you and I both observe a red car, but I distrust the evidence of my senses, I may ask you if you see that the car is red. If you say yes . . . we have some small evidence. That may not yet be fact, but it is at least one step removed from opinion.....I may ask a hundred people, two hundred, three million. If I find that my sampling is something like, say 2 million 990,000 to 10,000, then I have very strong, but not conclusive evidence.

---

Stephen, I think that in a case like you describe only one observation that the car is red would be sufficient. But even with a zillion observations, a scientist could not say for sure that the car is red. All the scientist could say is that the car is red on this side. We don't know what color the other side might be.  

Orderly Universe wrote:

---

stephen judd wrote:  If you and I both observe a red car, but I distrust the evidence of my senses, I may ask you if you see that the car is red. If you say yes . . . we have some small evidence. That may not yet be fact, but it is at least one step removed from opinion.....I may ask a hundred people, two hundred, three million. If I find that my sampling is something like, say 2 million 990,000 to 10,000, then I have very strong, but not conclusive evidence. Stephen, I think that in a case like you describe only one observation that the car is red would be sufficient. But even with a zillion observations, a scientist could not say for sure that the car is red. All the scientist could say is that the car is red on this side. We don't know what color the other side might be.  

---

Well, good point. But I leaped ahead and assumed that I, acting as a good scientist, walked around the car to make sure that it was red all the way around. Also to make sure that it was a car and not simply a 2D cardboard cut out . . . you see my problem. There are indeed so many levels of inquiry when we deal with observation -- including the very language we use -- that there will always be some imprecision even in highly observed, highly verified phenomena. To insist that unless something is proven 100% there is no point at which we cannot begin to take it as fact is sophism . . . . no one actually lives in that kind of world. We every single day act on "facts" that we cannot prove with abosolute but rather provisional certainty.

stephen judd wrote:

---

Suggestive of Nothing wrote:
 Finally, you seem caught up in a misunderstanding of "theory" and "fact." They are very simple terms. I am not confused, and my logic is just fine. You are the one who is playing semantics games to avoid discussing the fact that presenting an opinion (regardless of how much suggestive evidence is available) is illegitimate scholarship.

I actually am stunned that you say this. It isn't clear to me what exactly it is that separates opinion from "fact" for you.
If you and I both observe a red car, but I distrust the evidence of my senses, I may ask you if you see that the car is red. If you say yes . . . we have some small evidence. That may not yet be fact, but it is at least one step removed from opinion. If I continue this observation and questioning, I may ask a hundred people, two hundred, three million. If I find that my sampling is something like, say 2 million 990,000 to 10,000, then I have very strong, but not conclusive evidence. Obviously I am going to have to not only explain the 10,000 who appear to see something different, biut it is likely I am going to ask myself if there are other ways I can measure this phenomena besides polling people.
At the end of the day, I may still have some percentage -- in fact, it is axiomatic that I will -- of problems with my "theory." But the greater the weight of obervable phenomina and broader the array of testing that supports the idea that the car is "red", the closer I can begin to feel able to act on the observation as though it were true -- as though it were, in fact, "fact."
If my conversion of this "theory" into useful applications continues to confirm that the "fact" of a red car is correct, then I can say, provisionally, that the red car is a "fact" even though there is some small percentage of unexplained anomolies. If this were not true, then science and technology would be paralyzed -- there would be no intellectual activity, there would be very little progress in the world at all.
What the unexplained anomolies call me to do is to remain open to the possibility that the details of my "theory qua fact" may need to be adjusted. And yes, it is just possible that I may have completely screwed up, created bad data, used incorrect criteria, or everyone may simply have been lying to me and I am the vicitim of a giant conspiracy of people who want a joke at my expense -- so perhaps I may actually have a false theory. But the FACT is that the more the evidence stands up over the years, and particularly the more useful applications are found in the applied world, the more the applications are used by others who may use it as a base for extending knowlege -- the longer that happens the less likely it is that this "theory" will reverse itself, even though new and different details may emerge.
The "theory" of evolution had been around for well over a century. It does not only exist in some isolated lab context, it exists in practice. Whole apparati of science are based on it, use its principles -- and successfully --thus offering further confirmation that though it is, strictly speaking, a theory, in practical reality, it is "fact."
 

---

Stephen Judd,

You know, you're considered to be a pretty smart guy on the board, but I can honestly say that you either misread my posts or you didn't read them at all.

I ask that you re-read all of my posts and then think about them before you lecture me like I'm some sort of grammar school student.

An example of a fact:
What is the current mascot of USM? Seymour the Golden Eagle.
I can verify this beyond a doubt.

An example of an opinion:
Is the USM "Eagle logo" a ripoff of Iowa's Hawkeye? Yes, though it faces a different direction and is designed in a slightly different manner.

Unless you are blind, colorblind, or have on tinted glasses, then you have no reason to question the fact that the car was red. However, to run with your example, if you ask 2 million people about and 1,999,999 say it was red and 1 says it was purple, then you report the evidence, state that your findings suggest that the car was red, and move on. However, your example (designed for absurdity) is truly unrealistic.

Why are we so caught up in the need to state a definitive answer to questions for which we have only suggestive evidence?

Scientist wrote:

---

Suggestive of Nothing wrote:
Scientist wrote: Suggestive of Nothing wrote: ... Finally, you seem caught up in a misunderstanding of "theory" and "fact." They are very simple terms. I am not confused, and my logic is just fine. You are the one who is playing semantics games to avoid discussing the fact that presenting an opinion (regardless of how much suggestive evidence is available) is illegitimate scholarship. I'm using the scientific meaning of theory.  Please show me where I had a misunderstanding.  I clearly showed how these words were not being used correctly when it was stated "evolution is only a theory".  In science "opinion" not back up with evidence is not scholarship.  In what field do you consider it "illegitimate scholarship"? Again, you misunderstand my statement. I am not pushing for ID or creationism. I am merely stating (and have been all along) that while evolution explains changes well but origins of humans not so well. Those who attempt to use evolution to explain human origins are standing on thin ice; however, evolution cannot be disassociated from origins of humans because of Darwin's later works. Had some scientists not pushed evolution's theory of human origins as fact, the backlash against evolution would not be as great today. Using a classroom to advance such poorly supported ideas as fact is illegitimate, regardless of whether it's creationism, ID, evolution, or whatever "scientific" name you choose for your theory.

I did misunderstand you.  And I think I may have caused the misunderstanding.  When I state "origins" I didn't mean the origin of man.  I meant the origin of life.  If evolution is correct(and it is the only working scientific theory for now) then man evolved like all other animals from some earlier animal. 
Now I realize that will be a problem for some people's belief system.  But what choice does science have?  Someone may have the belief that god put a soul into an animal to "create" man, but those concepts are certainly not science.  In fact those concepts don't even have operational definitions.  Why do all animal evolve from others and not man?  
So I need to clear up my earlier post.  If you were talking of the "origins of man" than evolution does address that unless you can provide a scientific reason man is exempt form evolution.
 
 

---

But I stated in my first post that people were changing over time.

Orderly Universe wrote:

---

 Exactly what "issues" do you mean? Any or all of the issues that were discussed on this thread about scientific evolution and creationism (or, to the the politically correct term, intelligent design).    

---

O.U. I think I will have to disagree here.  Assuming we are adults, we can see how confusing this is and how even the technical vocabulary is not clearly understood.  To expose children to this in school would allow I.D. to easily confuse the students and establish in their mind that both are on equal footing.  (Just look at some of the statements that have been made.)  I is likely that  university science students would have a difficult time with the logic.

I consider this a method to get I.D. to the students without a valid reason for doing so.

 

Suggestive of Nothing wrote:

---

Stephen Judd, I think I typed too fast and am guilty of agressive response. I apologize. I had a great experience in biology class in high school (a teacher who taught evolution as change not origins and therefore avoided the creation/evolution debate) but I had a terrible college experience with a professor (at a small college) who stated that evolution perfectly explained everything from the origin of man to changes in species, and that anyone who disagreed was a dumbass, which left many questions to be answered on the way to my BS is biology. Too bad I stopped there and switched fields.

---

I think we are all tired. I'm going to bed.

Any teacher who says or implies that if someone disagrees with them then that person is a dumbass ought to be . . . made to sit in a classroom of people who treat them like dumbasses for a minimum of twenty years . . . . .

Thanks for the discussion -- I can tell that you are also trying to work your way through to find an appropriate position for you to take on a public issue. I respect that. I''m wrestling with it myself.

 

Good night.