Kids avoiding science because of Evolution debate

[southsider2k5]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8074471/

[Wong & Owens]

I've heard it said many times that the generation coming up now will be the first in American(World?) history to be worse off than the one preceeding it. I believe things like this are contributing to that trend.

[Gene Honda Civic]

I've heard it said many times that the generation coming up now will be the first in American(World?) history to be worse off than the one preceeding it.  I believe things like this are contributing to that trend.

Some of our greatest advancements lead directly to this...

 

Calculators as a crutch. -- Honestly there is so little to no need for calculators in a school environment. The object is to learn, not to punch in some numbers in a keypad and regurgitate what it tells you. How many times have you been to a store and some idiot store clerk cant figure out how to make change because you tossed in a few pennies? Calculators can be a great resource, but too often they are relied on for even the most basic of calculations.. And when you say "But, I'm bad at math" Isn't one of the main reasons because you never bothered to learn and just punched away at your calculator keypad?

 

The Internet -- Talk about a great resource. My High School first got widely connected to the Internet my in my senior year. It should come as no surprise that I completely plaigurised my 12 page research paper that we were all required to do that year. Back in the day, it wasn't even thought of to combat against stuff like that. SoxFan was asking for help for one of his classes just yesterday. What did kids do before the Internet? I don't even remember.

Edited June 3, 2005 by Gene Honda Civic

[Soxy]

What did kids do before the Internet? I don't even remember.

I vaguely remember going to the library. And having to use *ick* the paper card catalogue.

 

I'll never forget in my advanced algebra class in high school my teacher asked a kid in class what's 2 x -2. The student replied 0. When he said no she reached for the calculator. I think that pretty much sums it up. Why learn when something else can do it for us.

[GoodAsGould]

Some of our greatest advancements lead directly to this...

 

Calculators as a crutch. -- Honestly there is so little to no need for calculators in a school environment. The object is to learn, not to punch in some numbers in a keypad and regurgitate what it tells you.  How many times have you been to a store and some idiot store clerk cant figure out how to make change because you tossed in a few pennies? Calculators can be a great resource, but too often they are relied on for even the most basic of calculations.. And when you say "But, I'm bad at math" Isn't one of the main reasons because you never bothered to learn and just punched away at your calculator keypad?

 

The Internet -- Talk about a great resource. My High School first got widely connected to the Internet my in my senior year. It should come as no surprise that I completely plaigurised my 12 page research paper that we were all required to do that year. Back in the day, it wasn't even thought of to combat against stuff like that. SoxFan was asking for help for one of his classes just yesterday. What did kids do before the Internet? I don't even remember.

 

While people tend to go dependent on calculators there is a lot of need for them in school. Idonno what math you were in but in Trig/Pre-Calc... some of the stuff is impossible without calculators. As for a clerk not being able to figure out the math... there is a reason he is a clerk isnt there?

 

And there are a lot of anti-plagiurism sites teachers can use now that prevent most kids from cheating. A course some get by without being caught but Id say when its on an important paper 70% of the time or more the student will be caught depending on how much he plaigurised. And if caught they get dropped from the class which is a pretty big deal.

[Soxy]

While people tend to go dependent on calculators there is a lot of need for them in school.  Idonno what math you were in but in Trig/Pre-Calc... some of the stuff is impossible without calculators.  As for a clerk not being able to figure out the math... there is a reason he is a clerk isnt there?

 

And there are a lot of anti-plagiurism sites teachers can use now that prevent most kids from cheating.  A course some get by without being caught but Id say when its on an important paper 70% of the time or more the student will be caught depending on how much he plaigurised.  And if caught they get dropped from the class which is a pretty big deal.

I think that at higher levels (AP classes, higher level college classes) the pressure is higher so a lot of students do end up cheating. When you feel like you have to get an A to get into a good school, a good job, whatever, there's so much more pressure. And a lot of really good students will cheat. Anything for that extra edge. It's pathetic, and they aren't doing themselves any favors in the long run. I graduated from college with 2 kids that got kickedout of phi beta kappa for cheating. So, these weren't stupid people.

 

A lot of students also take advantage of the fact that teachers and ta's are overworked. When you're just one of at least 200 students it's probably pretty easy to think you'll get away with cheating. I once TA'd for a college intro psych class. I had to read 120 papers. I knew some of them were plagiarized, but I didn't have the time to track down all of them. So, you bust a couple of students and hope they will serve as examples to the rest of the students. Unfortunately, getting caught is pretty rare and a lot of students find it easier to cheat instead of taking advantage of the educational opportunities afforded to them.

 

But you're totally right about upper level math stuff. Some of it would be really hard and time consuming without calculators. Some of it, though, I think you have to do by hand to understand the stuff behind it. Even if you only do it once.

Edited June 3, 2005 by ChiSoxyGirl

[southsider2k5]

^^^^

 

That is pretty much what my wife said. She doesn't have time. Also in many schools they punish them so lightly it isn't even worth it.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I'm usually the one tthat derails topics, but what the heck, I'll try to gget this one bacl on track...

 

I appreciate that the politicization of science can and does turn students off, and that vocal anti-evolutionary points of view play a part on that.

 

But it's long past tiring to see it all couched in terms of "evolution debate." For biologists, there is no debate over the soundness of evolution as a field of inquiry, or over the validity of the evidence in support of neo-Darwinian theory.

 

I couldn't in a thousand years fully understand how astronomers discern the presence of distant space objects by summing the gravitational shadows of other nearby objects. But if I get in the newspapers or on TV and tell everybody I don't believe in any of the science going on there, and basically saying 500 years of progress in the field is hogwash, it doesn't make it a meaningful debate. It makes me an idiot for speaking out of place about something I don't understand.

 

Yet, non-biologists – ministers, school board busybodies, students and parents expressing their moral outrage, etc. – can voice any sort of asinine anti-evolutionary stance and amazingly it garners attention.

 

The quote from one of the teachers in that piece that evolution is "the one unified theory that can explain everything from antibiotic resistance to pesticide resistance over time,” is a good one. It echoes the much more famous piece of writing by Theodosius Dobzhansky more than 30 years ago that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

 

The American Biology Teacher article that famous Dobzhansky line comes from is well worth reading if you have never seen it. It points out that not even 40 years ago there were world leaders that were still flat earthers, deciding that Copernican views of the solar system were unscientific and even heretical, despite a few centuries of scientific findings (not to mention a human space program) indicating that little old Earth isn't the center of anything.

 

The anti-evolution crowd, with incisive arguments like, "I didn't come from no Gawd damn monkey!" – those are the new flat earthers. Stop paying any attention to them and the "great evolution debate" will go away.

[JUGGERNAUT]

The quote from one of the teachers in that piece that evolution is "the one unified theory that can explain everything from antibiotic resistance to pesticide resistance over time,” is a good one.  It echoes the much more famous piece of writing by Theodosius Dobzhansky more than 30 years ago that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

 

Do you actually believe that bulls***? Let me make it simple for you. Any one who does is walking through science with blinders on. The evidence is overwhelming from physics, mathematics, & micro-biology that natural selection is not the sole or even the predominant factor in the evolution of the universe & the life within it.

 

Natural selection is a process in the evolution of life. Of this there is no disagreement.

As such it should be taught in all schools. But to present it as the predominant process is ignorant. Especially since the rise of genetics. There is less than 10% variation in the human genome and that of most other life on Earth. If biologists wishes to cling to the belief that natural selection best explains that despite the fact that such a statement is ignorant of the mathematics associated with genetic science then they are free to do so. But such a belief should not be prostituted as good science in our schools.

 

In addition to natural selection intelligent design should likewise be taught in our schools. Intelligent design has nothing to do with creationism. It's about explaining creation via the observed mathematics present in life. If the mathematics tend to strongly suggest a central creator for that life then there's nothing wrong with teaching that conclusion as well. As long as the math behind it is sound it should be taught.

 

Mathematics is the cornerstone of all physical science. It should never be ignored.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

Mathematics is the cornerstone of all physical science.  It should never be ignored.

 

This is my first time:

 

Jugg likes numbers?

[SuperSteve]

I actually had a class this year which talked about human evolution. I want my kids to learn it too.

[Cerbaho-WG]

While people tend to go dependent on calculators there is a lot of need for them in school.  Idonno what math you were in but in Trig/Pre-Calc... some of the stuff is impossible without calculators.  As for a clerk not being able to figure out the math... there is a reason he is a clerk isnt there?

 

You're in for a rude surprise when you take college math courses. I took a 200 level Calculus course and a 100 level finite course without ever once using a calculator. You know all those trig functions and angles and such? You learn to memorize those. Mathematics, including higher level calculus, is entirely possible to do without the aid of a calculator. How do you think they were first discovered?

[FlaSoxxJim]

I absolutely, whole-heartedly believe it. So do 99% of the biologists out there.

 

To separate evolution by means of natural selection from the genetics side of the story as you are trying to do here is to ignore the last 80+ years of advancement of the field. It doesn't hold up when bozos like Phillip Johnson try to do it, when fundamentalist religiosos do it, or when people alarmed at our striking relatedness to the rest of organic existence (you are right on that score) try to do it.

 

As far as the mathematics, evolution – completely blind, non-directed, and imperceptably slow – is the field of inquiry that does get it right by leveraging the numbers. 4+ billion years of almost but not quite perfect DNA replication being carried out in trillions upon trillions of little living laboratories is the ultimate in replication.

 

And please explain how "Intelligent design has nothing to do with creationism" if the upshot of the "science" as you say is that all the perceived order of organic existence "strongly suggests a central creator"? It's just more wordgames by the creationist camp trying to get their useless flat earther foot in the door of the classrooms.

 

Our high school students alread suck at science compared to much of the world. Don't do them any further injustice by validating creationist crap no matter how it is dressed up.

[Cerbaho-WG]

In addition to natural selection intelligent design should likewise be taught in our schools.  Intelligent design has nothing to do with creationism.  It's about explaining creation via the observed mathematics present in life.  If the mathematics tend to strongly suggest a central creator for that life then there's nothing wrong with teaching that conclusion as well.  As long as the math behind it is sound it should be taught. 

 

Intelligent design has EVERYTHING to do with creationism. The founding proponent of ID is to find "signs of intelligence", properties that necessitate design (thanks Wikipedia!). ID is a form of creationism, not some pseudo mathematical bulls***.

[JUGGERNAUT]

ID has nothing to do with creationism. It has nothing to do with Genesis nor any other book in the bible. If you belief it does then you don't know jack about ID.

 

Now that is not to say it hasn't been hijacked by creationists for their political purposes. Not unlike natural selection has by secularists for their anti-religious purposes.

 

ID is the culmination of mathematical equations as derived from physics, & mirco-biology (genetics) to better explain creation in the Universe. That's all it is.

 

When I say it points to a central creator that doesn't mean God or some alien society. It simply means that the math supports a greater probability of a predominant central force behind creation rather than chaos & natural selection. It's pretty simple.

 

ID is not zealous toward religious or anti-religious views either. It is only the hate-mongering secularists who despise religion that will shout that it is. ID is purely rooted in mathematics. If the evidence should some time tilt those mathematics to a greater probability that chaos & natural selection are the predominant forces behind creation then my guess would be that ID would be renamed CD for chaos-design. Though based on what we know now that's very unlikely.

 

When we engage in these discussions I am so often reminded of my non-religious friends & colleagues in China & Japan who do not feel such hatred towards religion like some secularists here do. They inform me of research going on there that deals with memory's. The belief that it's not only physical characteristics that are past through human reproduction but also memory characteristics. They hope to prove this one day. It would help explain why people all over the world in different cultures & nations claim to have memories of past lives. It could also open the doors to areas of the brain that are seldom used & remain unknown as to what their function is. In Asia they are not as skeptic of psychics & psychic energies as we are.

[JUGGERNAUT]

I love how the secularists on this site refer to mathematical equations in science as bull s***. Do you know how ignorant that is? It's the very foundation of scientific theory. Theories are debunked when the math doesn't work.

 

ID within the scientific community (not the creationism one) is based on sound, proven mathematical equations. You never hear biologists who preach about natural selection as if it were a religion say anything about the math. All they do is associate ID with creationism & then attack creationism.

 

For those who don't know the difference creationism is the believe that the Hebrew God created the Universe as described in the pages of Genesis. ID has nothing to do with that.

 

Asia is much more open-minded to religion than secularists in America are because they have rich culture & tradition versed in many different beliefs & philosophies. What some are trying to do there is use science & mathematics to better explain those myths & legends. They are searching for truth in the midst of the fiction.

 

It be nice if we could have an open society in America willing to do the same. But unfortunately we have hate-mongering close-minded anti-religious secularists that seem to think they are the sole source of truth. It reminds me of WW2 Nazi Germany & the quest to create a perfect race. Not just unified in the belief of what we should look like but also what we should think as well.

[Cerbaho-WG]

ID is the culmination of mathematical equations as derived from physics, & mirco-biology (genetics) to better explain creation in the Universe. That's all it is.

 

Then wouldn't ID fall outside the realm of science, as science is mainly geared to a posteriori, or empirical, evidence supporting hypotheses instead of a priori? Just curious to understand ID a little better without turning this thread into an episode of Numb3rs.

 

"I can solve crimes through math!"

No, you really can't.

[Soxy]

Then wouldn't ID fall outside the realm of science, as science is mainly geared to a posteriori, or empirical, evidence supporting hypotheses instead of a priori? Just curious to understand ID a little better without turning this thread into an episode of Numb3rs.

^^^^^^^^^^

That was beautiful. Really.

 

And I've heard some ID speakers (went to a Christian college...). And let me tell you, it makes a lot of sense, if you're a religion, humanities, english, fine arts major. To those of us in the hard sciences it comes off less as science and more as philosophy.

Edited June 7, 2005 by ChiSoxyGirl

[Cerbaho-WG]

^^^^^^^^^^

That was beautiful. Really.

 

And I've heard some ID speakers (went to a Christian college...). And let me tell you, it makes a lot of sense, if you're a religion, humanities, english, fine arts major. To those of us in the hard sciences it comes off less as science and more as philosophy.

 

Hey now, I'm a German major and it doesn't make sense to me! At least I can use fancy terms like a priori since I've read Kant. Go meaningless major!

[FlaSoxxJim]

I don't know where all the rage against secularists as being de facto anti-religion comes from. Everything in its place. For trhe umpteenth time, evolution is not out to prove/disprove the existence of a divine agent. That falls entirely outside the scope of science because it is by its nature untestable.

 

Now, if scientists are so accomodating as to keep their noses out of religion, why the hell can't the God Squad stop pretending to be scientists?

[CrimsonWeltall]

ID is the culmination of mathematical equations as derived from physics, & mirco-biology (genetics) to better explain creation in the Universe. That's all it is.

 

It doesn't better explain creation because it doesn't explain anything. There is no agent, no mechanism, and no way to falsify it.

[Soxy]

Well, I've changed my mind...

[JUGGERNAUT]

It doesn't better explain creation because it doesn't explain anything.  There is no agent, no mechanism, and no way to falsify it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Maybe all of you evolutionists need to take a few courses in genetics, quantum physics, & computer science because they are ALL relative to ID.

 

In general do you even understand what ID is? In computer science you learn of to approaches to a problem: bottom-up, top-down. Do you know what that means?

 

Bottom-up means you start with your output & build upward the components to reach your input. Top-down means you start with your input & build downwards to your desire d output. Top-down tends to a more modular generic design & bottom-up tends to a more linear & specific design.

 

Evolution is bottom-up. Darwin observed characteristics of life (output) in various species & then begin to formulate a theory as to how it could lead to a source (input).

 

Intelligent Design is top-down. You start with the most simplistic genetic code found in life & then you create the modules for the variation found. Eventually you arrive at all species of life.

 

It is equally valuable to teach both. Just as it is important to teach students that the evolution of life on Earth can be traced back to single celled organisms that first existed in our oceans it is no less important to teach them that genetically speaking there is very little variation between man & a fruit fly.

 

Conflict between the two approaches exist when you try to define the process of natural selection in terms of mathematics. In theory every process can be defined in terms of a system of mathematics. However when doing this the process of natural selection does not fit well with probability theory rooted in genetics. The consensus then is that natural selection may not be the predominant factor governing creation.

 

Are zealous evolutionists afraid of mathematics? Maybe. That's the only explanation for why they are so vehemently opposed to educating students with a top-down approach to creation. Does it do a dis-service to the students? Absolutely. The future of biology is bio-tech. Not the study of observing natural selection via historical evidence found on this planet.

 

The top-down approach can explain to students how bio-tech manipulates that which our body consumes. They can learn how we used genetics to grow chickens that produce more meat on their bones. So much so that we've increased the pain they experience as their legs are not designed to support the added weight. That's not natural selection at work.

 

Is there room for creationism? Yes but not in the way creationists think. The book of Genesis has profound relationships that match both that which we know about the impact of natural selection on the evolution of life in the Universe as well as that which we know through the the study of genetics. More importantly it teaches the concept of omniscience & what it means to exist outside of the time.

 

Why is this important? Because students will learn the importance of energy states in quantum physics & how they can manipulate time itself. That's not religion that's science. And if that concept exists in the world of physics then it leads credence to the belief that omniscient creator can exist as well.

 

So as I've said before there is room for creationism so long as it's taught in correlation with what we observe & theorize in science. Not in opposition of science but as a complement to science. Which means you look at the symbolism rather than take it literal.

 

But we've been through this before in other threads. Some people have even define major sets of these correlations as they exist in Genesis. If you are close-minded to such things there's no hope in convincing you of their merits.

[Balta1701]

The key to that entire piece hangs on 1 point, which is totally buried in there and presented without evidence. I would like to point it out and discuss it, since it is really the entire point of that post.

Conflict between the two approaches exist when you try to define the process of natural selection in terms of mathematics.  In theory every process can be defined in terms of a system of mathematics.  However when doing this the process of natural selection does not fit well with probability theory rooted in genetics.  The consensus then is that natural selection may not be the predominant factor governing creation.

 

I'm ignoring the stupid "Because humanity can engineer biology, clearly biology entirely was designed" stuff.

 

Right there is the key point above - he is claiming that design must be top down, because natural selection does not fit well with probability theory.

 

However...this to me makes absolutely no sense, because evolution via natural selection is in itself entirely a function of probability.

 

How does natural selection work? It happens when there are changes in the genetic makeup of a group of life forms due to a differential die-off/differential reproductive rate. When a mutation arises in a species, it first arises because there is a finite probability of a creature's reproductive system making some sort of mistake. In fact, many species have functions that drive mutations so as to encourage diversity. But altogether, it is a function of probability.

 

Then, any mutation that arises is either going to produce a small advantage or disadvantage in reproduction. Over time...this small advantage gives groups with that advantage a greater probability of surviving, and that trait can become dominant. This process is entirely based in probability. In fact, it is easy to apply probability theory to explain when you would expect it to happen; if we reduce the total number of individuals in a group, it becomes far more likely that the trait can become dominant in that group, leading to speciation (read: Punctuated equilibrium).

 

I would argue therefore that evolution based on natural selection is a highly probabilistic function. Our friend has argued that it is not. He has not given any citation or logical reasoning to back this up. I hope that will change with time, because otherwise there can be no debate here.

 

p.s. Amongst whom will you find the consensus that you refer to above?

[FlaSoxxJim]

Maybe all of you evolutionists need to take a few courses in genetics, quantum physics, & computer science because they are ALL relative to ID.

 

I've taken formal coursework in genetics and molecular bio, organic chemistry and biochem, and I've TA'd a couple of those in the past as well. Exactly how many honest-to-goodness evolutionary biology courses have you taken? We're going to continue to differ on urgency of quantum physics coursework as prerequisite to an understanding of biological systems, but I agree that a diverse science and technology background is always useful.

 

Now, while admire your ability to move with such effortless fluidity between the realms of sceince, pseudoscience, and science fiction – apparently without your even being aware of it – I'm going to remain grounded in the realm of the scientifically testable.

 

You have the top-down/bottom-up argument precisely backwards. Darwin's insights, epiphanies, eureka moments etc. led to a bottom-up formation of his hypotheses, certainly. (Now if you want to argue a place for the hand of a divine agent, confine it to bestowing those moments of crystal clarity on the Darwins and Einsteins and Rosalind Franklins of the scientific world and I couldn't muster much of an opposig argument). But the actual evolutionarry process is entirely top-down, proceeding always with the materials at hand, within the operant environments of the day to exploit those niches of existence that can be exploited, and always with some hedge-betting strategies to leverage the chances of population survival in the face of environmntal change.

 

[As an aside, new and esteemed coleague Balta limited his well-written response to the deck-shuffling aspects of the process when addressinng probability questions. The other necesary ingredient – implicit in Balta's remarks on relative fitness, is the solidly deterministic nature of the environment as a filter, weeding out some phenotypes and allowing others to persist. In a nutshell, near infinite capacity for variation + the environmental filtters in play at any given place and time = bidiversity.]

 

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, can't be seen as anything but a bottom-up strategy if there are any teleological elements (ie, humans as a preordained, directed outcome of a divine agent's process) in one's formulation of the concept. If your formulation of ID is limited to an ex machina version of a divine agent, who flicked the cosmic switch/shot the cosmic marble/farted the cosmic fart and then let things proceed on their own, then there is no conflict because again science can only work with the testable universe in place once the supposed divine agent has set it in motion. It's the whole idea that there is some manner of plan that comes into conflict with evolutionary thinking, and that again says nothing about the existence of a divine agent per se.

 

Invoking an intelligent designer as an absolute necessity when faced with the diversity astoundingly organized nature of complex living systems is laziness passed off as critical thinking. The Greeks and Romans had lots of gods making the world hum along – growing their crops, driving sun-chariots across the sky, invoking the seasons with annual retreats to the netherworld, etc., and it obviated the need for looking for any real explanations for these natural phenomena. But organization can arise in an unconsciously directed manner. Not spontaneously, but through the accumulation of gradual, incremental change. The highly organized sorting of boulders, cobbles, pebbles and sand on high energy beaches is of course one of the textbook examples (albeit oversimplified compared to living systems). To see that kind of organization, you'd sure thin someone consciously directed that process. But of course, mechanical sorting through wave action (the operant environmental filter in this instance) took a randomized jumble of particle sizes and over time bestowed order upon them.