Draft of revised Texas science standards further undermines teaching of evolution

Telemachus, says:

Greetings,

Intelligent design/creationism is not only cherry-picked science, it is faulty theology as well. Startling as it may seem, by continually protesting that “blind” chance could only lead to “accidental evolution”, all denialist forms of creationism contradict the Bible's clear teachings that chance occurrence in the universe (randomness), is always under God's direct control!...Oops! How long will it take proponents to realize they are pushing what they themselves would call heresy? Try this:

http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid...

It's called: "Intelligent Design Rules Out God's Sovereignty Over Chance"

scienceguy, says:

“It’s like arguing that there are weaknesses or alternatives to gravity or that maybe Earth doesn’t really revolve around the sun after all. "

Well, it seems to me that Albert Einstein found an alternative or weakness to Newton's theory of gravity. He called it general ralativity. And also, the earth does not revolve around the sun... it revolves around a point that is the center of mass of the solar system, after you account for the mass of the sun and the major planets. That point is called the Barysphere, and it is often outside of the sun.

scienceguy, says:

In order to teach Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory, you MUST teach its limitations or shortcomings. This is because every scientific theory has to be able to be proven wrong, at least in principle. Technically, any theory, no matter how good it looks at the time, can never be proven right, because we are always discovering new facts and phenomena that could demolish our existing theory.

If you believe Evolution is absolutely, certainly, definitely right and cannot be false, then you are believing in it the way you believe in a religious doctrine. A religious belief can never be proven or tested, because it is a belief.

If, on the other hand, you view your theory, such as Darwinian Evolution, as a tentative working hypothesis that is temporarily useful in a limited number of cases, and will be replaced someday by a better theory, then you're thinking like a scientist.

scienceguy, says:

>>>>>"Intelligent design/creationism is not only cherry-picked science, it is faulty theology as well. Startling as it may seem, by continually protesting that “blind” chance could only lead to “accidental evolution”, all denialist forms of creationism contradict the Bible's clear teachings that chance occurrence in the universe (randomness), is always under God's direct control!<<<<<

Oh, I don't think so. Intelligent Design is a principle that certain things in the natural world are designed by an intelligent entity, rather than being developed by a chaotic process. This is not Creationism, by the way. Intelligent Design has no religious connection.

As an example, what about a beaver dam? Was it put together by random flows in the water current, or was it assembled by an intelligent designer? Most of us would agree that the beaver used some low level of intelligent design to put the dam in the right place in the creek, and put in just enough stuff to keep it fairly stable. But the question is, how do you scientifically distinguish between a random and an intelligently designed process in nature, when it is not so obvious a case?

One of the tools of the Intelligent Design process is a set of statistical tools that will tell you. You can determine, with a high degree of confidence, that this real world phenomenon was probably random in origin, whereas this other one was an effect of intelligent design.

The great debate in science today concerns climate change. We want to know whether it happens because of random changes in the planet's climate, or if it happens because of Intelligent Design, i.e., if it is due to human intervention. Presumably, we can use the principles of Intelligent Design to discover what is the human influence on climate, and how strong that influence is.

klue, says:

well said science guy. Personally I'm not much for presenting ID or any other religious / spiritual beliefs as science, but I'm equally leary of presenting scientific theories as if they were laws or facts. Presenting only one option, making kids blanket memorize it as a "fact" will just mean that 25 years from now when the scientific community disproves or modifies the theory, we'll all be scratching our heads and stubborn.

I didn't see anything here about state standards requiring the teaching of ID on equal merit as evolution, it just requires that evolution be taught objectively, and that student are given the opportunity to question it. Sure we don't necesarily want religious propaganda in a public school, but I don't see a thing wrong with allowing for open thought and discussion - maybe that will help these kids learn how to actually think for themselves and come up with some good arguments.

In my opinion, the only dissapointing thing about this change is that it puts too much emphasis on the evolutionary theory specifically instead of allowing for criticisms of all scientific theory. Any real scientist will tell you that constant criticism and defense of established principles is the best way to ensure progress in our understanding.

scienceguy, says:

>>>"or if it happens because of Intelligent Design, i.e., if it is due to human intervention"

Human intervention does not equate to intelligent design, especially when it comes to the environment. I agree that human intervention certainly stimulates evolution, but it isn't always of the intelligent variety.<<<<<

Oh, I disagree. I think that the rise of an industrial society that generates gigatons of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere is definitely the result of intelligent design. It's not necessary that the signal look intelligent, just that it is the result of intelligence.

For example, a radio signal from another star that is a repeat of one of Adolf Hitler's speeches from 1934... the signal has intelligent design and intelligent content. Or, the air temp over Los Angeles is 8 degrees higher than the surrounding countryside... intelligent design, but not intelligent content. By the way, "intelligent" does not necessarily imply "wise" or "well-founded", it just means intentional or goal-oriented.

On the subject, if parents want their children to learn creationism, then they are more than welcome to send them to parochial school<<<

Intelligent Design is not Creationism. It has no religious implications. Strictly speaking, it is a scientific discipline, or set of them, that can distinguish intentional phenomena from natural or random phenomena. It has application far beyond biology, into such fields as archaeology, detection of extraterrestrial civilizations (if any), cryptography, detection of classroom cheating, and many other fields.

Should it be taught in the 5th grade? Well, how much statistics or superstring theory do you teach in the 5th grade?

scienceguy, says:

&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;<scienceguy: "believe="" 5="" a="" able="" about="" adding="" address="" agree.="" allotted="" alternative="" always="" and="" another="" arbitrarily="" are="" as="" at="" atomic="" be="" because="" between="" blanks="" but="" carbon="" catastrophe.="" cause="" change.="" circle="" class="" climate="" clouds="" cosmic="" course="" crackpot="" create="" dioxide="" discrepancies="" do="" doesn't="" doing="" earth's="" einstein's="" equal="" etc.,="" etc.<<<<<="" every="" example,="" explain="" feel="" flaws="" for="" form,="" given="" good="" harm.="" have="" higher="" i="" if="" in="" in"="" introduce="" is="" it="" it,="" just="" land="" least="" left="" legitimate="" less="" like="" lowering="" major="" many="" mean="" minutes="" more="" need="" no="" not="" of="" one="" ones.="" or="" order="" others,="" our="" out="" physics.="" plenty="" point="" raise="" raising="" rays="" real="" relativity="" relativity,="" same="" science="" science,="" science.="" scientific="" sevberal="" several="" should="" should,="" still="" such="" taught.="" temperature="" temperature.="" temps="" test="" than="" that="" the="" then="" theories="" theories,="" theories.="" theory="" theory,="" theory.="" there="" thing,="" things="" this.="" those="" time="" time.="" timecube,="" to="" understand="" usage.="" variation="" wacky="" way="" we="" were,="" will="" with="" worth="" would="" you="" you're=""></scienceguy:>

scienceguy, says:

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;scienceguy..I understand what you are saying, I'm just not sure if you and the cavemen in Austin share the same concept of Intelligent Design.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

Just a tip. In order to defeat your opponent in debate, you have to understand your opponent in debate. If your only response to your opponent is insult, you have obviously failed to understand, or defeat, his argument.

The people in Austin are treating Darwinism as a theory, subject to falsification, just as any scientific theory is subject to falsification.

It is my experience that many people treat Darwinism, or its modern-day developments, as a religious dogma that is an alternative to the Christian Book of Genesis. In other words, Darwinism has become a creation myth for the irreligious.

scienceguy, says:

I'm thinking about the Star Trek universe and its many spinoffs. You see a pretty diverse mix of races, body types, different cranial shapes and ridges, etc.

What if 100,000 years after the Star Trek universe and its races were extinct, some future paleontologists tried to make sense out of the variation in all the humanoid bones in the Federation?

If he were clever, but not too clever, he might conclude that the various races in the Federation represented different stages of evolution... the Klingons eventually evolved into humans after a few million years, the humans evolved into Vulcans, the Vulcans evolved into the Borg, etc...

Silly, isn't it? But that's what our evolutionary biologists believe now, more or less...

scienceguy, says:

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;In my opinion, the only dissapointing thing about this change is that it puts too much emphasis on the evolutionary theory specifically instead of allowing for criticisms of all scientific theory. Any real scientist will tell you that constant criticism and defense of established principles is the best way to ensure progress in our understanding. &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

That's a good point, Klue. Science should not be taught to children as if it was a set of known facts, but as a collection of imperfect and tentatively held theories. The children should be told that when they are adults, the current theories may be replaced by better ones.

This implies that we teach the scientific method as well as currently held theory.

scienceguy, says:

Well, Travis Bush, I was responding to the "caveman" characterization. Demeaning someone's level of civilization will not lead to constructive dialog.

The problem with the teaching of biology these days is that Darwinist evolution is presented as an alternate religion. Or as a secular substitute for the Christian creation myth. That's not the purpose of science.

I think presenting Darwinism as a theory rather than as a fact is reasonable. And making a theory out of it means that it is presented as a limited view of nature, having a given applicability in certain areas, but definitely not the end-all and be-all.

That's how we teach Newtonian gravitation, by the way. It only applies in a limited area, there are other forces besides gravity, and it is just a special case of Einstein's General Relativity.

Yes, the Discovery Institute is a thorn in the side of agnostics, atheists, secularists, etc. But their view is no less a religious myth as is Christian fundamentalism.

A limited role for Darwinism, rather than a religious and philosophical view of the subject, is reasonable for a secular school system.

scienceguy, says:

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Beaver dam is a terrible example. Structures and biological beings shouldn't be compared apples to apples (quite an appropriate expression, imo). Not much science necessary to understand that living things weren't thrown together like a pile of sticks and rubbish.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

I'm using the beaver dam example to illustrate the wide applicability of the discipline. A particular biological feature, just as anything else, may be the product of Intelligent Design, or it may be the product of Darwinian Evolution. Unless we understand design theory, we cannot tell the difference.

By the way, the so-called "Intelligent Designer" is not related to the Christian God. When I do software development, I am the Intelligent Designer, and I hope my users don't come to believe I coded the software through random evolution.

scienceguy, says:

Let me amplify on my previous posts, folks. I live in a world that is partly the result of random chaotic change, and partly the result of goal-oriented intentional manipulation. Darwinism has a place in this world, and it can reasonably explain certain things, some phenomena. But not all.

And I don't have any preconceived philosophical or religious view as to what did what. Just by looking at a couple of breeds of canines, I don't know if the breed was deliberately enggineered by an intelligent designer, or happened to just come out that way through random evolution. I'd assume a coyote evolved Darwinistically, and a Cocker Spaniel was deliberately bred, but if I want scientific proof, I believe the theory of Intelligent Design would allow for a scientific test of this question.

scienceguy, says:

&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;<we and="" at="" boils="" but="" can="" class!="" down="" go="" government="" is--keep="" it="" it.="" keep="" my="" of="" on="" out="" religion="" science="" this,="" to="" too,="" what="" while="" with="" you're="" your="">&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

But the problem is that Darwinism is being presented as a religious creation myth. Such a myth should also be kept out of the schools.

Texas is on the right track in presenting it as a flawed, limited scientific theory that has reasonable alternatives. Those alternatives should also be presented as secular in nature.</we>

scienceguy, says:

&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;<i "might="" and="" anything="" automatically="" because="" being="" believe="" but="" can="" christian="" coexist.="" cool="" creationism="" days="" disbelieve="" do="" don't="" every="" evolution.="" god?="" i="" in="" is="" it="" mentions="" no,="" offend="" our="" out="" related="" religion="" schools,="" so="" someone"?="" taught="" that="" the="" theory="" these="" thrown="" to="" two="" wacked="" want="" why="" you="">&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

Carol, I don't mean to offend or be contrary, but let me state my views. I don't believe that religion of any kind has a place in a secular school system, and I believe that a strict wall should exist between religion and science, even in a religious school.

Scientific inquiry and religious devotion are two incompatible human functions, like eating and sleeping are incompatible.

In religion, a person develops faith and character. It is self-developmental and a way to integrate identity or personhood.

In science, we learn to be skeptical, to test things with the aim of finding their limits, being free of their influence on us. We discover than many of the things we observe with our senses are false illusions. The sun doesn't really rise in the east and set in the west, it's just an illusion of the senses.

Many people cling to Darwinism as an article of religious faith, an alternative to the Christianity that they lost faith in. It is a way to explain their obvious existence without dependence on the common religion of the land.

The problem... Darwinism is imperfect for the same reason every other scientific theory is imperfect. Scientists don't know everything, they can't measure everything, they can't see the entire universe at once.

Since it is imperfect and limited, it should be taught as such in schools, the same way we would teach Newtonian gravity as a limited and imperfect view of reality.What we can tell students is this... the theory is an idealized view of the subject, and you will encounter many phenomena that do not fit this theory, or do not fit it well. And there are many current applications of biology, such as genetic engineering, where this theory will be completely irrelevant.

Ultimately, you will find that the theory presumes many phenomena that you can never observe, only infer. Since you cannot validate those aspects of the theory, it is irrelevant in regard to them.</i>

scienceguy, says:

Since the purpose of science, or at least a strong part of its mission, is to identify ideas that are based on illusion and ignorance... do you really want to mix science and religion?

regnvejr, says:

Scienceguy, your claim that *"Intelligent Design is not Creationism. It has no religious implications. Strictly speaking, it is a scientific discipline, or set of them, that can distinguish intentional phenomena from natural or random phenomena" is not true. Science is what is evaluated through the application of the Scientific Method. As such, ID is NOT a scientific discipline. Your claim is simply false.

Secondly, there is no such thing as "Darwinism," unless you are talking about Charles Darwin's original hypothesis. If you are referring to the Scientific Theory of Evolution, then please do so.

Thirdly, your claim of what Evolutionary Biologists "believe" seems utterly false. Could you please provide some specifics rather than ad hominems?

regnvejr, says:

Collin, carbon dating is developed through the Scientific Method. To claim it is "guessing" is starkly dishonest.

scienceguy, says:

To the best of my knowledge, Darwinism has the following 3 elements:

1. The evolution from one species to another takes place in very small steps

2. Changes to an organism that lead to a new species are random rather than directed or pre-programmed

3. The long-term survival of a species is governed by its selection and eventual fit in an environment

I'd say that, yes, Intelligent Design is not an empirical science as such, any more than statistics or mathematics is an empirical science. It is more of a concept and an analytic technique. To extend my example, analyzing a beaver dam in order to determine if it was natural as opposed to artificial would be done by proper application of the ID discipline.

Its pronouncements are definitely falsifiable, however. If it pronounced something as Darwinian and it later turned out to be artificial, it would be faulty.

The concepts of ID and of Darwinism are not mutually exclusive. The phenomenal world could contain both examples of development.

scienceguy, says:

I hope everyone realizes that the idea of an intelligent designer being responsible for something in the phenomenal world we analyze does not imply anything divine or supernatural. Planet earth has billions of intelligent designers.

scienceguy, says:

Here's a question for you. We have 2 models of development, Darwinism and Intelligent Design. When Apple developed the iPod, which of the 2 development models best explains the iPod development cycle... Darwinism or ID?

I'd say that ID is the better explanation. There was no transition from a portable CD player to an iPod that involved many small steps, and there was no random sequence of changes.

DC, says:

Hey, it's both cars of the 'intelligent design' crazy train: religious whackos with the jeebus olives and pseudoreligiouswhackoscallingthemselevesscientists with confused ideas about empiricism. Awesome.

By the way....

....what intellegence... found, and discovered, in the way of truth...by the tangents of primary colors...DC, philosopher of photosynthesis

scienceguy, says:

I'd think that an iPod certainly qualifies as a "feature of the universe". If you don't think it's a feature of this universe, then which one?

I'm interested in the way things come into being, and that definitely allows for anything which did not exist at one time but does exist now.

But if you want a biological example, then lets talk about rabbits in Australia. The place has zillions of them. But how did they come to be there? Darwinism or Intelligent Design? In this case it was ID. Some transplanted Brit felt unhappy without them, so he had a few shipped from Old Blighty and set them loose on his farm. So we have an excellent example of an intelligent agent (the farmer) following a design (plan to transplant them).

This does not mean that all the Australian animals were migrated over... some may have evolved via Darwinism... but some obviously did not.

scienceguy, says:

&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;<there "shipped"="" (flubs,="" after="" an="" and="" argument.="" as="" begin="" bought="" cd="" circuit="" code,="" codified="" decades="" design="" development="" discreet="" ditching="" don't="" errors="" even="" fact="" fiascoes)="" finite="" fires="" hours="" in="" into="" ipod="" is="" join="" legacy="" lines="" of="" only="" opensource,="" private="" process="" product="" public,="" research.="" right="" sample="" samples.="" scope="" snapshots="" space.="" teeny="" that="" the="" thousands="" to="" trials="" two="" unarchived="" went="" were="" with="" years="" you="" your="">&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

That's a perfect example of how Intelligent Design functions. A bunch of engineers using creativity to intelligently design something. There were no tiny sequences of intermediate steps and no random mutations, the intermediate steps between prototypes were thoughtful and creative on the part of the engineers. Also, the development required the simultaneous development of several elements which an intelligent agent had to coordinate.

I worked at TI with engineers who were developing the DLP projector chip. The development process had no relationship with the Darwinian model of development...</there>

scienceguy, says:

By the way, Jason Rice, if you want to explain how the iPod designed and built itself without the benefit of human engineers, I'll be glad to listen.

ch0, says:

Amazing that here in the future we are still having this conversation. C.H,... PC Load Letter

regnvejr, says:

SG, you are still talking about "Darwinism." If that is the Scientific Theory of Evolution, then you are wrong in your claims. It merely means that what you criticize is something you didn't understand to begin with.

In fact, Evolution doesn't have to lead to new species at all to be Evolution.

And changes are not random, they are part of many changes and happens to be the ones best adapted to the environment. And a BIG one in that part of your argument is that individuals don't evolve, only populations do.

So it really is not clear at all that you know what Evolution is. How can you argue against what you don't know? Won't the only result merely be you demonstrating your lack of knowledge?

regnvejr, says:

Collin, you are in error. This site does a nice job at explaining why:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wie...

(It, by the way, is the site for Science exploration from a Christian perspective, and as such are not from "atheists" or any other nutty claim that creationists may come up with) See page 13 and 14 about how this is done and calibrated. Your simplistic derisiveness merely shows ignorance of the actual science behind it.

scienceguy, says:

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;SG, you are still talking about "Darwinism." If that is the Scientific Theory of Evolution, then you are wrong in your claims. It merely means that what you criticize is something you didn't understand to begin with.

In fact, Evolution doesn't have to lead to new species at all to be Evolution.

And changes are not random, they are part of many changes and happens to be the ones best adapted to the environment.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

The last time I checked, a random mutation was, well, random. Something happens to the critter's DNA and the critter is a little bit different. Maybe it was a stray cosmic ray that mixed up the DNA chain, maybe it was just a copying error when the DNA copied itself. But it happens at random.

And no, a random mutation is usually not well adapted to the environment. In almost all cases it kills the organism. Random changes that survive the environment are two of the three elements of Darwinism. Does it create a new species? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

While all of this plays a part in biology, it is an ideal theory that may or may not have much of an effect in practice. Keeping in mind the limitations and shortcomings of any scientific theory is just good common sense as well as good science.

scienceguy, says:

As I've mentioned before, many people use Darwinism not as a scientific theory, but a religious one. It is a counter argument to the idea of a personal God who is manipulating the forces of nature on a case by case basis.

Well, arguing theology and the nature of God, whether He is active as a personal manipulator of nature, or is willing to let nature run on its own... that's fine for Sunday school or for a bible college.

But elevating Darwinism to the stature of a religious truth, a principle that is supreme in nature in the way that a God was thought to be supreme... that is not science. It certainly does not belong in a secular school system, supported by taxes from people of many different opinions.

If Darwinism were taught as a science, it would be taught as a theory, not as a fact... a theory that was a partial explanation of only some natural phenomena, a theory that had reasonable alternatives, and a theory that has only a limited effect on the natural world.

Those three characteristics are true of every other theory man has devised... they should be true of the Darwinian theory as well. And I'm happy that the State of Texas is intending to teach it just that way.

Billusa99, says:

Sg... Darwinism has 5 laws, not 3:

1. Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.

2. Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth.

3. Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isolated founder populations that evolve into new species.

4. Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden production of new individuals that represent a new type.

5. Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about through the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation.

Darwinism is commonly used in North America now by the ID and Creationist crowd as a pejorative and you need to drop it if you want to be taken seriously. Which I notice is fading fast here. Also, it's not all that Gould wrote about evolutionary theory, either.

Lastly, to the person who said they believe in both creationism and evolution and they both can co-exist. The only way they can co-exist is if you believe that the earth is 6000 years old, which is the core behind creationism. If you believe that, then you cannot believe in evolutionary theory.... B-numbers, Google-a-thon summarizer extraoridnaire.

(We now return you to our regularly scheduled horse.)

scienceguy, says:

Billusa99, thanks for joining the discussion.

I'd have to disagree with you on a couple of points.

Common descent and multiplication of species is itself an interesting idea, but is seperate from the Darwinist theory as such. Indeed, some proponents of Intelligent Design believe in it.

Your mention of Gradualism is appropriate, but you have failed to include randomity in your list. Indeed, the idea of randomity is probably the most important criterion separating Darwinism from ID as such. For example, if you create a genetically engineered strain of wheat in a lab, it has been derived from Intelligent Design (obviously) instead of Darwinist evolution, since it didn't originate from a random mutation. Someone used a bit of intelligence to design a specialized strain of wheat.

"Darwinism" as a pejorative term? That's news to me. Personally, I think it's a perfectly legitimate model to explain certain phenomena... it just doesn't explain everything, nor does it do it perfectly.

scienceguy, says:

I suppose that discussions of Darwinism versus ID as competing biological models is somewhat off post.

The real issue is the downgrading of Darwinism to the status of a mere theory among other theories, in the Texas public school system.

I've taken the stand that that is an improvement in the teaching of biology, and the treatment of science in general, as an organized practice of observing the phenomena in the world, developing theories that explain what we perceive, and replacing those theories with better ones.

scienceguy, says:

Looks like I have to backtrack on a point. It turns out that multiplication of species is commonly thought of as a corrolary of the Darwinist idea. In fact, Darwin's book was titled "Origin of Species".

It is not an essential part of Darwinian evolution as such, IMHO, just a logical consequence. Science is like that, when a theory suggests one or more consequences. The Darwinist theory can succesfully explain evolution of new and useful traits in an organism, can stand on its own, even if species differentiation fails to happen for other reasons.

Which is not to say that Darwinism cannot have flaws, or severe limits in its area of applicability.

regnvejr, says:

SG, you are still in error.

&lt;<the a="" and="" at="" bit="" but="" chain,="" checked,="" copied="" copying="" cosmic="" critter="" critter's="" different.="" dna="" error="" happens="" i="" is="" it="" itself.="" just="" last="" little="" maybe="" mixed="" mutation="" random="" random.="" ray="" something="" stray="" that="" the="" time="" to="" up="" was="" was,="" well,="" when="">&gt;

That also is debatable, as some part of the chromosomes and of the DNA is more likely to mutate than other. But the response to the environment is not random. The mutations or rearrangements of alleles that are best suited will begin to dominate in a population, and as the environment changes, so will the domination of various alleles. That is not random but rather depends on the allele's ability to confer competitive advantage in a population.

&lt;<and a="" adapted="" environment.="" is="" mutation="" no,="" not="" random="" the="" to="" usually="" well="">&gt;

Correct. Otherwise we would be up to our ears in mutations and there wouldn't really be anything like species.

&lt;<in all="" almost="" cases="" it="" kills="" organism.="" the="">&gt;

Incorrect. In almost all cases it doesn't matter one way or the other to an organism. Most mutations do absolutely nothing to the organism's ability to have survivable offspring.

&lt;<random are="" changes="" darwinism.="" elements="" environment="" of="" survive="" that="" the="" three="" two="">&gt;

I wouldn't know. What is "Darwinism"? There is no "Scientific Theory of Darwinism." There happens to be an original scientific hypothesis generated by Charles Darwin, a hypothesis that, through the application of the Scientific Method has generated the modern Scientific Theory of Evolution. I hope that you are not going to claim that the Scientific Method generates unreliable results, are you?

&lt;<does a="" create="" it="" new="" no.="" sometimes="" species?="" yes,="">&gt;

Mutations and Natural Selection can at times do this, yes.

&lt;<while a="" all="" an="" biology,="" effect="" have="" ideal="" in="" is="" it="" may="" much="" not="" of="" or="" part="" plays="" practice.="" that="" theory="" this="">&gt;

Actually, that is an understatement. Almost all practical/concrete biological research and development relies on the Scientific Theory of Evolution as its foundation. So the "may not" part is a disingenuous understatement.

&lt;<keeping and="" any="" as="" common="" good="" in="" is="" just="" limitations="" mind="" of="" science.="" scientific="" sense="" shortcomings="" the="" theory="" well="">&gt;

Sure. So are acknowledging its strengths and not misrepresenting the science itself. And so is to not for political/dogmatic reasons try to single out onme aspect of science as faulty when it is not. Such dishonesty, as we so often see from creationists is lame and pathetic, not to mention dishonest.</keeping></while></does></random></in></and></the>

regnvejr, says:

SG, you are still posting errors.

&lt;<as a="" as="" before,="" but="" darwinism="" i've="" many="" mentioned="" not="" one.="" people="" religious="" scientific="" theory,="" use="">&gt;

"Darwinism" is still not a Scientific Theory, your revisionist linguistics and emotional hyperbole none withstanding. The only relevant Scientific Theory here is the Scientific Theory of Evolution. Talking about Darwin in light of today’s scientific theory is no better than arguing about the Wright Brothers when talking about the space shuttle. Try to keep up and be in the NOW here, thanks.

&lt;<it a="" argument="" basis.="" by="" case="" counter="" forces="" god="" idea="" is="" manipulating="" nature="" of="" on="" personal="" the="" to="" who="">&gt;

Certainly the Scientific Theory of Evolution is no such thing. Perhaps you see your mythical "Darwinism" as such, but that has nothing to do with reality. I hope you are not bearing false witness here, as your erroneous and ignorant claims are becoming rather irritating. At least have the courtesy to know what it is you are arguing about.

&lt;<well, and="" arguing="" god,="" he..="" nature="" of="" the="" theology="" whether="">&gt;

..Or she, or both.

&lt;&lt;..is active as a personal manipulator of nature, or is willing to let nature run on its own... that's fine for Sunday school or for a bible college. &gt;&gt;

But irrelevant to science which deal with data and evidence, not beliefs.

&lt;<but a="" be="" darwinism="" elevating="" god="" in="" is="" nature="" not="" of="" principle="" religious="" science.="" stature="" supreme="" supreme...="" that="" the="" thought="" to="" truth,="" was="" way="">&gt;

Probably not. But then this mythical "Darwinism" straw man you are setting up has nothing to do with the Scientific Theory of Evolution which does nothing of what you are arguing, so what is your point here?

<it a="" belong="" by="" certainly="" different="" does="" from="" in="" many="" not="" of="" opinions.="" people="" school="" secular="" supported="" system,="" taxes="">&gt;

Then it is fortunate that what you call "Darwinism" is no more in the public schools than are the lies and misrepresentations of creationism and ID.

But of course, the Scientific Theory of Evolution, developed through the application of the Scientific Method is VERY MUCH in the public schools where it belongs.

&lt;<if a="" as="" be="" darwinism="" fact...="" it="" not="" science,="" taught="" theory,="" were="" would="">&gt;

&gt;&gt;&gt;?? Yeeeesssss....??? But then the only science taught in this context is the Scientific Theory of Evolution, taught at the same validity level as all other scientific theories developed through the application of the Scientific Method.

Do you have some general concern about the nature of Scientific Theories in general that you are arguing against here? You are beginning to seem very ignorant of not only Evolution, but also of all science, and even of the most basic aspect of science, namely the Scientific Method. Do you even know what it is, and why the data it develops is reliable?

&lt;&lt;...a theory that was a partial explanation of only some natural phenomena, a theory that had reasonable alternatives,&gt;&gt;

Again, your mythological "Darwinism" may or may not fit this, but certainly the Scientific Theory of Evolution does not fit your claim. If that is your argument, then you are directly bearing false witness, so I really hope that you are talking about something else.

&lt;&lt;..and a theory that has only a limited effect on the natural world.&gt;&gt;

Ah, so you are NOT talking about the Scientific Theory of Evolution, then, as it certainly has vast and penetrating importance and relevance throughout the fields of biological sciences. So what is your point here? It seems utterly irrelevant to the real world, this talk about "Darwinism" which simply doesn't seem to exist to begin with in light of the existence of the Scientific Theory of Evolution.

&lt;<those are="" as="" be="" characteristics="" darwinian="" devised...="" every="" has="" man="" of="" other="" should="" the="" theory="" they="" three="" true="" well.="">&gt;

Hmm, are you talking about a Scientific Theory here?

&lt;<and happy="" i'm="" intending="" is="" it="" just="" of="" state="" teach="" texas="" that="" the="" to="" way.="">&gt;

The State of Texas is going to teach your mythical "Darwinism" instead of the Scientific Theory of Evolution? Are they really THAT stupid in Texas?</and></those></if></it></but></well,></it></as>

regnvejr, says:

&lt;&lt;"Darwinism" as a pejorative term? That's news to me. Personally, I think it's a perfectly legitimate model to explain certain phenomena... it just doesn't explain everything, nor does it do it perfectly. &gt;&gt;

WHo knows. But it has nothing to do with any correct terminology about the Scientific Theory of Evolution.

If are referring to this, then it is dishonest and a sign of immaturity to engage in such immature hyperbole and emotional histrionics.

scienceguy, says:

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;That also is debatable, as some part of the chromosomes and of the DNA is more likely to mutate than other. But the response to the environment is not random. The mutations or rearrangements of alleles that are best suited will begin to dominate in a population, and as the environment changes, so will the domination of various alleles. That is not random but rather depends on the allele's ability to confer competitive advantage in a population. &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

I'd have no problem with that characterization. The particular molecule that a cosmic ray smashes into is certainly random, and the effects are random, but the success of the eventual results are not randomly succesful.

scienceguy, says:

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Incorrect. In almost all cases it doesn't matter one way or the other to an organism. Most mutations do absolutely nothing to the organism's ability to have survivable offspring. &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

Questionable. You have no data on the number of stillborn or dead mutations.

scienceguy, says:

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Probably not. But then this mythical "Darwinism" straw man you are setting up has nothing to do with the Scientific Theory of Evolution which does nothing of what you are arguing, so what is your point here? &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; if you have anything better to communicate as to your "scientific theory of Darwinism", go ahead and say it out loud.

scienceguy, says:

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Ah, so you are NOT talking about the Scientific Theory of Evolution, then, as it certainly has vast and penetrating importance and relevance throughout the fields of biological sciences. &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; No, Darwinism as such has no effect on the validity on the subject of biology. If it were to be discredited tommorow, the rest of biology would not be affected.

scienceguy, says:

Let me repeat something I've said before. Darwinism as a scientific theory, I believe has some value. It explains quite a bit about the physical world.

What I argue is that it is just a theory, with limited applicability, limited scope, and not at all the entire answer to the biological riddle.

scienceguy, says:

Here's an interesting quote by Lawrence Selden. I don't completely agree with his views, but they are interesting:

I am a macroevolution agnostic. I used to accept evolutionary theory. Then I looked at the evidence. It became clear to me that macroevolutionary theory is built more on a priori philosophical assumptions than on evidence. Microevolution, on the other hand, is supported by the evidence. The distinction between the two is critical and is largely ignored, or not understood, by the mainstream media and general public.

scienceguy, says:

.....Clever way to approach a 6000 year old planet with all our life forms and geologic history...no thanks.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Looks like we have a difference of opinion...

scienceguy, says:

One of the questions I have is this... we went from a 5,000 year history with a hunder-gatherer society, to a farming society, to a society that does genetic enginnering and genetic modification.

How can we be sure that in the 4.5 BILLION year history of the planet, some other society has not been able to do genetic modification?

scienceguy, says:

What's your question?

scienceguy, says:

Rephrase the question:

In the 4.5 billion year history of the planet, how do we know that other civilizations have not done Intelligent Design on the biology to "evolve" other biological organisns"?

scienceguy, says:

&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;<yes 10="" acurate="" age="" almost="" an="" and="" another="" archaeology="" atlantis="" come's="" complete="" cultural="" dating="" earth,the="" earth,which="" final="" for="" from="" full="" has="" history="" in="" information="" is="" it="" man's="" manwhile="" meanwhile,="" of="" on="" or="" other="" placement="" planet="" planetary="" quite="" scale="" search="" terms="" the="" this="" time="" to="" u.k,...="" universe's,="" years="" young,compared="">&gt;&gt; The qyuestion remains... do you believe this is an accurete Knowledgebase of the 4.5 billion hiostory of the planet earth? I don't think so.</yes>

scienceguy, says:

The Darwinian world view depends on the puerile theory that in only the last few thousand history of the 4.5 billion year history of planet earth was man able to use Intelligent Design to bodify the biological world.

scienceguy, says:

Sorry, guys... the phrase "bodify" should be corrected as "modify".

regnvejr, says:

Combining for simplicity:

&lt;&lt; Incorrect. In almost all cases it doesn't matter one way or the other to an organism. Most mutations do absolutely nothing to the organism's ability to have survivable offspring.

Questionable. You have no data on the number of stillborn or dead mutations. &gt;&gt;

There are good biological research data on mutations that hold up accross species. The vast majority of mutations have no discernible impact on organisms.

&lt;&lt; Probably not. But then this mythical "Darwinism" straw man you are setting up has nothing to do with the Scientific Theory of Evolution which does nothing of what you are arguing, so what is your point here?

if you have anything better to communicate as to your "scientific theory of Darwinism", go ahead and say it out loud. &gt;&gt;

There is no "scientific theory of Darwinism" as I pointed out. You are now outright lying.

&lt;&lt; * *Ah, so you are NOT talking about the Scientific Theory of Evolution, then, as it certainly has vast and penetrating importance and relevance throughout the fields of biological sciences.

No, Darwinism as such has no effect on the validity on the subject of biology. If it were to be discredited tommorow, the rest of biology would not be affected. &gt;&gt;

Ah, but if THE SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF EVOLUTION was discredited tomorrow, biology as a scientific field would immediately fold. Once again, your ramblings about "darwinism" are utterly irrelevant and merely shows your outright dishonesty and subterfuge.

&lt;<let a="" about="" as="" before.="" believe="" bit="" darwinism="" explains="" has="" i="" i've="" it="" me="" physical="" quite="" repeat="" said="" scientific="" some="" something="" the="" theory,="" value.="" world.="">&gt;

And, regardless of your false witnessing, there is no such scientific field as "Darwinism." Rather, there is the Scientific Theory of Evolution, for which all your claims would be outright lies. No wonder you are to cowardly to address Evolution and instead coat yourself in lame euphemisms.</let>

ch0, says:

Dismiss evolution if it pleases you, but generational trait-selection points to a cultivation of the better parts of man, regardless of conscious intent or random mutation. I know people with webbed-toes and IQs over 150. We are indeed better than before, crooked as the path may be. Oh, to be an anthropologist in the year 2508... C.H, Cyborg Lemur.

ch0, says:

We talkin hurdles or limbo?