🚀 go-pugleaf

Ron McDermott wrote:

> On Mon, 22 May 2000 16:20:12, Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
> wrote:
>
> > rmcder@nospam.peoplepc.com (Ron McDermott) wrote:
> > >In actual practice, the blanket assertion that life evolved from
> > >single-celled organisms (which is not at all uncommon in classrooms)
> > >is antithecal to the beliefs of Fundamentalists.  It's understandable,
> > >then, that this group would consider such statements to be both
> > >threatening and unacceptable.

> > The fact that the Earth is round is antithetical to the beliefs of
> > Flat-Earthers.  We still teach science in the science classroom.  The size or
> > vociferousness of the religious position is irrelevant.
>
> You may think so, Bob, but there is no legitimate reason, scientific
> or otherwise, to assert something as fact which isn't and claim
> scientific evidence to support the claim.  Present the evidence,
> impartially, and let students draw their own conclusions; that's what
> it's supposed to be about in the FIRST place!  If kids then decide
> that this unequivically implies abiogenesis and all the rest, so be
> it, but don't shove it down their throats as being "scientifically
> proven" (a contradiction in terms).
>
> > >> That is the position that science should take.  There is no evidence of non
> > >> materialistic processes, so they should not be taught as science.
> > >
> > >Nor should conjecture, however "logical" it may seem, be taught as
> > >fact.  Logical conjecture doesn't lose anything by being identified as
> > >what it is.  To present such as "fact" and claim scientific support
> > >for that position is dishonest.
> >
> > Most "conjectures" that pertain to evolutionary theory have some scientific
> > support, though perhaps not the level appropriate to calling them "fact".
>
> Fine.  State it that way and there's no problem.  Present it as a
> logical deduction based on available evidence.  There is no reason, in
> this case certainly, to stretch science to the breaking point,
> attribute to it something which isn't involved in science (proof of
> correctness), and basically go out of one's way to antagonize people
> unnecessarily.

> >  There isn't a damn thing removed from biology or the
> concept of change over time for organisms, by sticking to what we KNOW
> (meaning those things we can directly observe) and avoiding
> extrapolation as anything more than being theory.

The above statement is so painfully evident and also so seldom (or never) expressed
that it requires  a  comment, since it is a crucial element in the teaching of
evolution.

Exactly what is the effect on Biology, Ecology, Microbiology, Cell Biology, Genetics,
Limnology, Anthropology, Paleontology, Bio-engineering and the host of other
biology-related fields of study, if species "evolved", arrived by "panspermia"
somehow from other planets, were "created" by God or some other intelligent being?

If it were discovered tomorrow that every (say eukaryotic) cell contained all the
information for every species available within it, would any of these studies be
"voided"? Evolution simply explains the supposed origin of species and might just as
well be a fairy tale or omitted altogether for the effect it has on the basic content
of these studies.

Dobzhansky's popular statement "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of
evolution", a basis of this belief, is shear nonsense, yet seems to be a guiding
principle, a template for the teaching of biology. It is as inane as a statement such
as "nothing in Physics makes sense except in the light of the Big Bang". Nothing
illustrates the bias taught in evolution more than this belief IMO. This can all be
cured by treating evolution as a possibility, rather than a fact. This idea is not
Creationism.

But Dobzhansky's statement is nothing other than "inverse reasoning", very  similar
to the process  described in Thesis #3 about "natural selection", of the original
post (below).

If it read 'Nothing in *evolution* makes sense except in the light of *biology:*',
there would at least be some semblance of meaning. Once again, we see in the teaching
of evolution "circular" or "inverse" reasoning combined with the acceptance of ideas
which enhance belief in a purely "naturalistic" explanation for things, with the
omission of any other explanation. Your statement, if it is interpreted correctly,
makes clear one of the major problems in teaching evolution.

Bob
"http://www.flash.net/~rdwillia/darwinian_evolution.htm" (original post page)

Note this has been posted to the following additional newgroups, which carry most of
the thread:
k12.chat.teacher, alt.education, misc.education.science, alabama.education,
alt.education.alternative