IAP statement on the teaching of evolution

[russ_watters]

You can't turn facts into truths by putting error bars on them.

No one is trying to.

No it wasn't, it was based on redshifts and beat out a close rival only after the discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation. Those redshifts (the facts) would be useless for determining the age of the universe without a theory relating redshift to distance and another theory relating distance to time.

That isn't how it happened at all. Your understanding of both the theory and the history of how it was developed are wrong.

In my opinion, it was exactly the tone.

Well here's the thing. Take a step back and look at the implications of your opinion. This document has been endorsed by, at the very least, a few hundred scientists and read by probably a few thousand more. You are essentially saying that these scientists are not behaving like scientists. And there are only really two possible ways that could be true:

1. Either the scientists of the world have all succomed to the same group pathology that is causing them to contradict themselves and no longer be scientists.
2. A vast global conspiracy exists by which scientists have banded together to suppress real scientific knowledge.

As for everyone else who has read this document, there are two possibilities:
1. The document was so cleverly written that few people notice the inconsistency in the wording.
2. The inconsistency doesn't exist and the document means what it says.

Jimmy, you've backed yourself into a corner where most of the scientists in the world must be wrong simultaneously or be part of a vast conspiracy in order for you to be right! Or, you're misreading and misunderstanding the document. Which do you think is more reasonable?

 

[Evo]

You can't turn facts into truths by putting error bars on them.

YOU are the only one incorrectly calling these "truths". You are intentionally creating a false argument in an attempt to drag the thread off topic. You have three days of vacation to rethink if you will stop this nonsense or be permanently banned.

 

[EL]

First of all I would like to make clear I definitely find the document positive.

I can see what jimmysnyder's point is: To debunk the unscientific ID-"theory" with the help of something else unscientific is not the right way to go, and in general I of course agree with that.
But here jimmysnyder has probably drawn the wrong conclusion from the document. It is not trying to tell "truths", but instead stating what is "scientifically established facts", which is something totally different (as Evo, Russ, Gokul et al already have explained).

One thing I do not get in Russ' reasoning is though:

The age of the Earth (or the universe) is measured.

How do you measure the age of the universe?
I would say we need to use a theory (e.g. BB) to calculate it out from other measurements.

 

[Gokul43201]

One thing I do not get in Russ' reasoning is though:

How do you measure the age of the universe?
I would say we need to use a theory (e.g. BB) to calculate it out from other measurements.

Even if there are parts of the BBT that are wrong, there are certain other parts that are supported by numerous independent measurements of different kinds - the overwhelming majority of which are in very close agreement. One such part is Hubble's Law, which by itself gives a pretty good estimate for the age of the Uniiverse.

Dating the Earth on the other hand, is much easier - especially the part the jimmysnyder inaccurately portrayed in his 2-billion year joke. Radiometric dating of terrestrial rock gives a lower bound on the age of the earth. All the early dating was based on this. It is only natural for the lower bound to rise and get closer to the true age as the number of measurements increased. What science achieved was to raise the lower bound on the estimate, not raise the age of the Earth itself.

 

[EL]

Even if there are parts of the BBT that are wrong, there are certain other parts that are supported by numerous independent measurements of different kinds - the overwhelming majority of which are in very close agreement.

No doubt in that.

One such part is Hubble's Law, which by itself gives a pretty good estimate for the age of the Uniiverse.

How do you get the age of the universe from Hubble's Law without assuming a comological model?

(Of course we can estimate lower bounds on the age of the universe by measuring stuff like the age of chemical elements, oldest star clusters and oldest white dwarfs. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html.
But, as said, those are "just" lower bounds.)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

To all on this thread and in all physicsforums threads,

The past three days have been useful to me as a time of reflection and self evaluation. I apologize for my behavior on this thread and others including, but not limited to:
argumentitiveness
inflexibility
uncompromisingness
I agree that these traits do not lend well to civil discusion and I will endeavor to refrain from them. You have no idea what a burden that will be. And to add to that load, I hope to remain edgy, provocative, and passionate while doing so. I intend that my future behavior will justify any faith you may put in the sincerity of this apology.

Jimmy

 

[Oceanborn]

Physics should not discriminate against anyone of any faith or creed. After all, science is the study of knowable natural laws; physics, especially when studying the universe, is also the study of knowable laws, laws that can be written down in the language of mathematics. The problem is that everything we know about the past is right here in the present now--so, if we claim evolution is a fact and force that into common adademical law, and evolution is not a fact, then, what has science accomplished?
Science is self-correcting. Any form of non-objective analysis can hurt true scientific research due to too much politics. In conclusion, evolution and physics are two saperate studies when it all comes down to it. For physics is the study of the knowable, evolution hasn't been proven nor observed (though many believe it is true). I for one will not let politics get in the way of truth or research. We can all believe in anything we want where origins in concerned, that's American freedom; but science has a study must remain open to the self-correcting conduct it was originally known for. If there is a God, and the Bible is true, then there must be some evidence worthy of investigation.
There are many physicist who believe in differnt views of origin, though they all understand what true physics consist of and know when not to deviate from physics and push theory into national law.
I truly love science. I don't believe that any scientist should be bias since nobody can prove beyond a doubt that evolution is the true origin of man.
Not to deviate from the topic too much, but I must add that I personally have a problem understanding how biogenesis can constitute life coming from non-life --do you know what I mean?

 

[Office_Shredder]

Evolution has been observed. Do you want to modify your statement now?

 

[pcorbett]

I definitely find the resilience of theories in cosmology, biology and geology to scrutiny convincing. I would most likely find unconvincing any challenge that refuses to address the evidence on hand that these theories are operative in the present and through recorded history. On the other hand, I don't begrudge someone the right to disagree and petition the government because they believe something else occurred in the distant past. I most certainly would love to see more opposition to advocacy from institutions that support predominantly leftist policy positions. So I guess I'm against ID's opponents in this fight.

 

[Gokul43201]

I for one will not let politics get in the way of truth or research.

What, really do you know about research? Let me assure you that a scrapbook you make for your middle school science project is not research (it is part of a learning process).

However, if you are not, in fact, a middle school student (or younger), please accept my apologies - you sure have me fooled.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I don't believe that any scientist should be bias since nobody can prove beyond a doubt that evolution is the true origin of man.
Not to deviate from the topic too much, but I must add that I personally have a problem understanding how biogenesis can constitute life coming from non-life --do you know what I mean?

Just to steer this towards an educational perspective even more than it already is:-

Yes, but do you have an alternative that shows that life did not come from biogenesis? One that is scientifically sound and can be tested rigorously by scientific method? This is what the objection is in my eyes not that ID isn't an alternative theory but when it comes down to it's core tennant so, it's not a scientific one, and should therefore have no place in a science class, philosophy/religous classes, no problem, knock yourself out.

Most scientists don't dismiss ID because it is religous mumbo jumbo(some scientists are even devout Christians themselves, yes it's true ) I think it's more to do with the fact that it answers nothing, creates no opposing scientific hypothesis and so isn't even a blip on their radar, can anyone tell me why it should be? As mentioned before you can poke holes in evolution all you like provided you do it on a scientific basis that's good science, just saying God done it is not a scientific theory though and since that's essentially what it all returns to in ID it's the philosophy of religion, not a sound basis for discussion now is it?

It is important that religion and education remain in a strictly non political form, over here trying to push ID in science lessons wouldn't happen, simply because the church would not try to advocate that it did, it has no business telling the government what to include in it's curriculum, church and state are so separate that when God is bought up in parliament people laugh or deride the person in question - I'm not kidding either, it's like making a rude joke about the late queen mother, not tolerated in any form (Only in America, never seemed so apt in this situation) However in fact if a RE(Religous Education) teacher decided to mention it in a lesson or to teach it, no one would care, after all RE teachers have been teaching about the beliefs of the various faiths for years,in this case that all life came from Adam and Eve and that God designed man, not some random chemsitry and time so where's the beef? Kids are perfectly able to descriminate between a biology class and a religous one, and to come to their own conclusions without people forcing their beliefs into subjects they don't gel with.

I must say I find the concerns of the religous advocates very patronising and sadly devoid of merit, there's no way on Earth I'd try to force anything into a curriculum as regards my beliefs, belief belongs strictly in the religous class and evolution in the biology class, and religion is the responsibility and right of the individual and his family, no religous case in my eyes justifies poking your nose into the affairs of the government, but then we have absolute separation of church and state for a very very good reason in Europe, religous induced wars being the 3rd biggest killer in Europe behind plague and famine. Anyway a European perspective, if anyone's interested

 

[pcorbett]

What, really do you know about research? Let me assure you that a scrapbook you make for your middle school science project is not research (it is part of a learning process).

However, if you are not, in fact, a middle school student (or younger), please accept my apologies - you sure have me fooled.

Gokul's got a point, Oceanborn. You don't have to hunt down funding for your middle school science project. It can get pretty vicious in the academic world. Politics is as much a part of scientific study and research as the scientific method.

 

[Oceanborn]

Wow, I sure got some interesting responses on my first post!

I have taken the time to research the arguments that both evolutionist and creationist offer regarding the origin of everything. I must say I do understand M-theory and agree with the basic framework of the theory (though reject the membrane part because its just too much guessing). It not hard to believe in 11-dimensions or living in a bubble in an ocean of bubbles. Though as much as I believe this is truly possible, I also understand that there a lot of guess work involved in such cosmogony.

I do understand that biogenesis states that the singularity of all life comes from life; so, my question to you forum members is whether or not non-life to life has ever been observed, especially in the macro-sense of what evolution has always stood for?

Also, I would like to add to the question has to why we science students, whether middle-school or university students, should feel that creationism is not science? Was not Isaac Newton and many other great scientist who had the qualifications in their fields Bible believing people? Darwin himself only had an MA in theology which doesn't qualify him has a scientist. Are we all to believe and accept that all theistic scientist are stupid after 400-years of scientific progress? I understand that evolution has its basis for belief...but...it is still in the theory stage and I feel that people should not force the field of true science in any direction that may cater to anybody politic. Science is objective, and always subject to criticism when it comes to any forum of pseudo-science like the unknowable origin science.

Regardless of anything negative or possitive that you fellow members may reply with, I still enjoy the field of science--I mean, who wouldn't?

 

[Phobos]

especially in the macro-sense of what evolution has always stood for?

Evolution is not just about fins-to-feet. Even small changes are part of the evolutionary model.

Also, I would like to add to the question has to why we science students, whether middle-school or university students, should feel that creationism is not science?

The concern is that creationism does not follow the scientific method. It does not conduct any significant research, peer-review is not conducted or is ignored, it offers no testable explanations, etc. Its motivations are religious and its tactics are political. Students of science should be learning the science accepted by the scientific community and not ideas from others who bypass the scientific process.

Was not Isaac Newton and many other great scientist who had the qualifications in their fields Bible believing people?

Yes, but that is not the issue. Studying/conducting science does not require philosophical materialism.

Darwin himself only had an MA in theology which doesn't qualify him has a scientist.

A scientist is one who conducts science. (scientific method)

Are we all to believe and accept that all theistic scientist are stupid after 400-years of scientific progress?

No one is saying that.

I understand that evolution has its basis for belief...but...it is still in the theory stage

In science, a "theory" is the ultimate goal. A theory does not graduate to a law or something. A theory just gets further researched in order to be improved (or replaced with something better).

and I feel that people should not force the field of true science in any direction that may cater to anybody politic. Science is objective, and always subject to criticism

I think we all agree with that.

when it comes to any forum of pseudo-science like the unknowable origin science.

Not sure what you mean by this. Biogenesis? "Pre"-Big Bang? Anyway, ideally, scientists would pursue these mysteries scientifically as much as possible and freely say "we don't know" at the limits.

Regardless of anything negative or possitive that you fellow members may reply with, I still enjoy the field of science--I mean, who wouldn't?

Glad to hear it! Although I'm no longer a mentor/moderator here, I think civil discussions should be a goal here at PF. Bad vibes you may get might be leftover from previous heated debates.