James Shaw

Evolution: a wicked and vein philosophy? Should tax payers monies go for supporting this view?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/24/1286975/-Taxpayer-dollars-teach-that-evolution-is-wicked-and-vain?detail=email

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs and I'm entitled to not pay for them.
In short; absolutely not.

James Shaw

Hi Frank T. Well, you answered the second question. What about the first?

Evolution: a wicked and vein philosophy?

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Evolution isn't a "philosophy" or belief system.


Here is an analysis of this "controversy" by Laurence Moran, biologist with the University of Toronto:

Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term. When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution. And when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have a clear definition in mind. What exactly do biologists mean when they say that they have observed evolution or that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor?

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.
Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:

"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."
This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition.
Standard dictionaries are even worse.

"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers
"evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's

These definitions are simply wrong. Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind. This often leads to fruitless debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a different perspective. When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in gravity!
Recently I read a statement from a creationist who claimed that scientists are being dishonest when they talk about evolution. This person believed that evolution was being misrepresented to the public. The real problem is that the public, and creationists, do not understand what evolution is all about. This person's definition of evolution was very different from the common scientific definition and as a consequence he was unable to understand what evolutionary biology really meant. This is the same person who claimed that one could not "believe" in evolution and still be religious! But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes religion!

Scientists such as myself must share the blame for the lack of public understanding of science. We need to work harder to convey the correct information. Sometimes we don't succeed very well but that does not mean that we are dishonest. On the other hand, the general public, and creationists in particular, need to also work a little harder in order to understand science. Reading a textbook would help.

James Shaw

----------------
"Philosophy" was not my coinage. The word was in the article.

OK, so you do not wish to answer question one, obviously, because you have problems with the word "philosophy." But would you like to answer the second question, about who should pay for it, or do you consider it a sequitur to the first and, therefore, not worth answering? I was not asking to correct the content of the article, but fine that you wanted to and did.

Your detailed accounting, above, despite missing the point of the article, is very good and was interesting to read, and I agree with what you say, but can't those on a thread stick to the issue, first, and then go own with their own "philosophies" and deliberations?

There is a tendency to ramble on first. I was always told to address an issue directly then give whatever. So, whatever.....

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

I fully support public education.

I apologize if I missed the point. My understanding was that we were being asked if evolution was a "wicked and vain philosophy" and who should fund the teaching of it.

Mike

James Shaw

Yes, that was what was the post asked, but now after re-reading you statement above, I can see where you were coming from, as I see it from your point of view. Your answer was that it is no philosophy at all, and that does address the question. My apologies for not seeing that the original statement could be interpreted in more than one way.

Again, I liked your initial (rather long but thorough) response and agree with it entirely. We do need better education of the public at the basic science level. Thanks for clarifying for me. Sorry for my blindside.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

No problem.

Mike

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

1. No
2. No

Teaching that the earth is flat with the sun rotating around it and other silly notions such as that the earth is only 6,000 years old should not be in any way supported by the government, and should in fact be declared a form of child abuse, since it is creating a whole bunch of really ignorant kids. Science is neither wicked nor vain. Science is simply the act of observing nature in order to try to predict what will happen in the future. But this has always been a threat to those Taliban and Christians who feel that anything that seems to run counter to their religious teachings is inherently evil and should be squashed immediately. And although the Christians have gotten past the inquisition, the uber-whacko variety still try to inject their people into governance at every level so as to attempt to tell all of us how to think.

James Shaw

Thank you for answering the questions directly, and for your civil and, in my opinion, right-on views following your answers. We need better basic science education throughout grades K-12 and thereafter. If not, our next generation will continue to fill with the "uber-whacko variety." Thanks again for responding.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Well said.

Mike

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Too bad no taxpayers dollars are going to fund the Museum...that's a falsehood that keeps getting passed around.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

And lame failed strawman arguments like this should be outlawed because either you are lying or you are ignorant of the fact that no Creationist believes this; and when the church DID affirm this...they were following secular science...that was their mistake.

Quit using this lame argument...





Really?

I think that this is an ignorant statement that has no basis in fact.

The fact is...there are Creationists doing science all over the globe and in fact the giants of science were mostly bible believing Christians...but forget the actual facts...keep spewing nonsense like this.



And every bible believing Creationist would agree. Observational science....we love it.





More straw men...blah blah blah....quit using this lame-o argument too.




Lol...and on to insults...gee how did I guess that this would be how this lame post ends?

I think that all you have in your holster is insults, and canards, and straw men...I don't think you have the first clue what Creationists' positions are...and beyond that...I don't think you want to know...you just want to spout these one-liners on photo forums because nobody can challenge you to back up what you assert.

If I'm wrong...by all means....PLEASE email me and we can discuss....

rpavich (at) gmail (dot) com.

James Shaw

Lord forbid that should happen. We are broke enough and have troubles with our own religions and infrastructures. Kinda of like the dinosaur pic though. Funny we don't find dinosaur bones in the soil dating back 6 thousand years.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Lots of assumptions all wrapped up in that sentence eh?
I would say that's exactly what we find.

But then...how we view the same evidence has always been the crux of the discussion hasn't it?