Evolution shouldn't be taught in schools if creationism isn't allowed

I know. Let's take this to bits, paragraph by paragraph.

Evolution shouldn't be taught in schools if creationism isn't allowed Ken Schalfley, Midland Daily News 06/04/2006 There have been several recent letters to the editor concerning the teaching of evolution and creationism in the public school curriculum. Proponents of evolution say it is based upon scientific evidence and creationism is not, therefore, creationism should not be taught. I would ask those who favor only evolution to consider the following questions derived from the Discovery Institute in Seattle concerning recognized icons of evolution. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth, when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

The experiment showed that it is not impossible that "life's building blocks" appeared purely by chance. There would be many permutations of the conditions in the experiment which could lead to different proteins being formed, and no-one can say what the initial conditions were like. This was just a proof of concept, not a proof of what precisely happened.

Why don't textbooks discuss the Cambrian explosion, in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor, thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

Are you looking in the right textbooks? When the Cambrian explosion was first discovered, the technology to look at the fossils properly, to find the precursors of the species which emerged in this eight milion year window. The boundaries of microscopy are being pushed back, and it is expected that more detail will be found regarding these organisms yet; no reasonable person in the scientific community assumes they have found everything.

Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for common ancestry, even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and that the drawings are faked?

This paragraph requires a great deal of detail which it is missing to be of any use to anyone. The accusations appear to be unfounded, a slew in general on textbooks which remain nameless, and there would have been an outcry by biologists (I feel it can be reasonably assumed that not all young biologists taking their first degrees of study, looking at textbooks and comparing with reality, are dishonest, many in fact profess to be Christian).

Why do textbooks portray the archaeopteryx as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

The archaeopteryx is not generally believed to be a missing link. It is believed to be a relative to the direct ancestors of modern birds, and is still not fully understood. However, its bone and wing structure is particularly interesting to scientists, and has been observed fossilised in very fine grain limestone, meaning it can be studied perhaps more thoroughly than most fossils, hence its heavy use in textbooks and the like.

Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection, when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and that all the pictures have been staged?

The peppered moth is a useful demonstration of the theory, showing how it could be employed. There is argument on both sides of the debate, not just one, and it is not the only demonstration of the principle (polar bears vs brown bears is a more wide ranging example across different species, but illustrates the point).

Why do the textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection, even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended and no net evolution occurred?

Darwin, the first major literary proponent of evolution in his book "The Origin of Species..." used Galapagos finches as his own example. It is a very easy to understand presentation of the idea, and shows the differences across the different islands clearly, something a textbook is meant to do. It tries not to demonstrate evolution (a long term process), but natural selection by means of survival of the fittest (a more short term process, where genetic mutation is not paramount to its success, merely an already present difference). Also, the meaning of this paragraph is somewhat vague, and could do with some clarification of what it's getting at precisely, for instance when you use the term "net evolution".

Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence the DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

It is particularly difficult to engineer extra wings on an animal, or even just extra cartlidge, or an extra head. Give the scientists a break, they demonstrated that if you modify DNA, you can end up with a very different animal. Scientists have demonstrated their concept much more successfully where GM crops are concerned, with many GM crops now in large scale production. The changes to DNA with physical consequences show that changing DNA could lead to improvements in an organism.

Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify claims that we are just animals --when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

Artists drawings are useful in showing to the general public what has been found. They are usually representations of evidenced creatures, found by their fossil, or even bone records, and make science more accessilble. They would not be used as evidence (hence justifictation) in serious research.

Perhaps the most important question to be asked is why are students told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact, even though many of its claims are based upon misrepresentations of the facts?

Scientific fact is unlikely ever to be proven, and is used as a substitute phrase for "proven beyond reasonable doubt". It is not believed by the scientific community, which oversees what is protrayed as "scientific fact" that the current theory of evolution (not exactly the same as Darwin's original) that the theory is based on misrepresentation of "the facts". Any fact in science is up for disproof; that's what the scientific method is about, I'm afraid.

I have always been under the impression that Darwin's theory of evolution is just that -- a theory. Darwin himself, in his work, Origin of Species, said, "For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in the volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived."

"The Origin of Species" is no longer the be all and end all of evolutionary theory, it has been expanded upon, as Darwin would have wished, its claims tested, sometimes disproved, but very often supported. Just because Darwin said something in his book does not make it true, so his admission that his theory may not be up to scratch was in fact very correct of him. The people who were to read his book would possibly have been rather shocked by his work, and he did not want to appear too prescriptive, and he therefore allowed people to make up their own minds, based on the evidence he produced.

Reflecting on his work near the end of his life, Darwin stated, "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them." I find it interesting that Darwin compares his work as a religion to those who reveled his work. Based upon what he said, if other concepts such as creationism should not be allowed in the public schools, neither should the theory of evolution.

THis argument does not follow. Darwin's followers did take to his ideas and believe fervently in them, but this is because they stood up to scientific scrutiny, and not because of a blind faith which would lead a religion into turmoil and uselessness. Creationism is not regarded as scientific fact, it is a religious concept. Evolution now is regarded as a scientific fact, not as a religious concept, however "religious" its beginnings. By saying "other concepts such as creationism", you also imply that creationism is one of many different things which "should be banned", when in fact, this debate appears to be purely about creationism and evolution; nothing else had so far been mentioned. Overgeneralisation spring to mind?

Is Darwin's theory of evolution worthy of discussion and investigation? Of course. Should it be given scientific law status? More conclusive evidence needs to come forth before that can ever happen, which appears unlikely, since some of the critical "evidence" for evolution has had to be altered. For more indepth information, get a copy of "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?," authored by Jonathan Wells.

Evolution has not become a scientific law in the same way that the effect of gravity on a macroscopic scale is regarded as a law. People are looking for the evidence, and it appears that "Icons of Evolution:..." would be a rather biased source; Jonathan Wells has not been without criticism. Namedropping a book such as this in an argument is a rather unsteady way to support your claims. There has been much less "evidence" (I use ""s ironically here, I'm getting bored of this argument)

Since education is to be a quest for learning, it is proper to investigate any queries to creation. Our Forefathers would approve, why can't we?

We are doing. It's called the study of evolutionary theory, and I couldn't agree with you more. However, by using this conclusion with such unsteady evidence as above, you discredit yourself as a serious debator. Think it through yourself next time, okay?

http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news.... 472539&rfi=6

You've just ripped an article by some other bloke to pieces here. Nothing in the post is any of ~JESUS~' own words.

Classy first post though. And now I understand why you started raving about fruit bats.

You've just ripped an article by some other bloke to pieces here. Nothing in the post is any of ~JESUS~' own words. Classy first post though. And now I understand why you started raving about fruit bats.

Lenny if I "rip" and article by someone else, I post a link. Nothing I said today was stolen.

Fruit bats? You need to get off the computer. Go get some exercise. It does the body and mind wonders!

I know. Let's take this to bits, paragraph by paragraph. The experiment showed that it is not impossible that "life's building blocks" appeared purely by chance. There would be many permutations of the conditions in the experiment which could lead to different proteins being formed,

no it cant. Proteins are formed by combinations of amino acids, precise combinations dicated by information only...and environmental factors that select from present genes to survive.

and no-one can say what the initial conditions were like. This was just a proof of concept, not a proof of what precisely happened.

proof of concept? lol

Are you looking in the right textbooks?

There are alot of them out there!

When the Cambrian explosion was first discovered, the technology to look at the fossils properly, to find the precursors of the species which emerged in this eight milion year window.

When it was discovered, scientist thought the earth was no longer then 10,000 years old. There are no intermediates! Bats are found fperfectly complete with sonar hearing and fully extended bat wings! There are no intermediates! there should be hundreds of thousands if not millions! what a lucky time to be alive I guess, nothing is evolving anymore I guess...

The boundaries of microscopy are being pushed back, and it is expected that more detail will be found regarding these organisms yet; no reasonable person in the scientific community assumes they have found everything.

Nor will they ever! But they do try to...

This paragraph requires a great deal of detail which it is missing to be of any use to anyone. The accusations appear to be unfounded, a slew in general on textbooks which remain nameless,

dude, there are thousands of textbooks written over the last 150 years! Are you joking? Get some like every 20 years and you will laugh!

and there would have been an outcry by biologists (I feel it can be reasonably assumed that not all young biologists taking their first degrees of study, looking at textbooks and comparing with reality, are dishonest, many in fact profess to be Christian).

...again another opinion with no foundation. Lets debate facts and not discuss what people would or wouldnt do...

The archaeopteryx is not generally believed to be a missing link.

oh but it is. My nephew has it in his textbook!

It is believed to be a relative to the direct ancestors of modern birds,

Oh yeah? where are the rest?

and is still not fully understood.

..and it wont be, iits been proven a hoax!

However, its bone and wing structure is particularly interesting to scientists, and has been observed fossilised in very fine grain limestone, meaning it can be studied perhaps more thoroughly than most fossils, hence its heavy use in textbooks and the like.

..oh is that it, hence? lol...yes that MUST be the reason. Such an exact science!

The peppered moth is a useful demonstration of the theory, showing how it could be employed.

another played out hoax!

polar bears vs brown bears is a more wide ranging example across different species, but illustrates the point).

point about what? Its not evolution, its adapting to the environment! This is not evolution, you cant have the best of both worlds! The definition of evolution sure has come along way in the last 150 years, WAY more than the actual proof for the original theory! Its ALL information that had to have had a designer.

..and by the way, its still a bear!!!!

Darwin, the first major literary proponent of evolution in his book "The Origin of Species..." used Galapagos finches as his own example. It is a very easy to understand presentation of the idea, and shows the differences across the different islands clearly, something a textbook is meant to do. It tries not to demonstrate evolution (a long term process),

yes it does, which is why its used.

but natural selection by means of survival of the fittest

Natural Selection actually is the exact opposite of survival of the fittest as a means of explaining "evolution"..but the definition has evolved to include it as well..with a twist of couse.

Natural selection occurs, but nothing evolves. Nature “selects” genetic characteristics suited to an environment and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. This is called natural selection.

Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased.

People think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. In actually, natural selection PREVENTS major evolutionary changes!

It is particularly difficult to engineer extra wings on an animal, or even just extra cartlidge, or an extra head. Give the scientists a break, they demonstrated that if you modify DNA, you can end up with a very different animal. Scientists have demonstrated their concept much more successfully where GM crops are concerned, with many GM crops now in large scale production. The changes to DNA with physical consequences show that changing DNA could lead to improvements in an organism.

Not improvments for say... Just the goal MANS INTERVENTION deliberatley set out to accomplish by taking one gene and mixing it with others. This is FAR from explaining orgins or evolution for that matter!

amazing also that everything just so happens to be fool proof just as it is, the way God made them huh? lol

Artists drawings are useful in showing to the general public what has been found.

Or not found, we as humans have imaginations. Plant an image, it stays. Very useful tool for proaganda.

The examples givin were proven that the people were told to make the drawings!

They are usually representations of evidenced creatures, found by their fossil, or even bone records, and make science more accessilble. They would not be used as evidence (hence justifictation) in serious research.

opinion and false.

Scientific fact is unlikely ever to be proven,

what? Are you joking? Are you just bending rules to fit the mold? lol

"The Origin of Species" is no longer the be all and end all of evolutionary theory, it has been expanded upon, as Darwin would have wished, its claims tested, sometimes disproved, but very often supported.

Say the entire name of the book. "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

..its because it HAS to be. Do research on who controls the museums, research funding, boards and everything under...

Evolution is a tool for control.

Just because Darwin said something in his book does not make it true,

Obviously.

so his admission that his theory may not be up to scratch was in fact very correct of him. The people who were to read his book would possibly have been rather shocked by his work, and he did not want to appear too prescriptive, and he therefore allowed people to make up their own minds, based on the evidence he produced.

Another opinion. He said and did alot of things. Big deal. Most HURT his "theory"

THis argument does not follow. Darwin's followers did take to his ideas and believe fervently in them,

you got that right...

but this is because they stood up to scientific scrutiny,

Another opinion that doesnt hold. Look at the scientific community then, what influence did it have compared to today? lol

and not because of a blind faith which would lead a religion into turmoil and uselessness.

Useless to you. Another unfounded opinion.

Creationism is not regarded as scientific fact, it is a religious concept.

what something is regarded as means nothing.

Evolution now is regarded as a scientific fact,

what something is regarded as means nothing. Facts are facts. If you teach one as ABSOLUTE when it isnt, there is a reason...

not as a religious concept,

yes because not being absolute it is faith based that worships time that can not be proven, how convenient!

By saying "other concepts such as creationism",

what?

you also imply that creationism is one of many different things which "should be banned", when in fact, this debate appears to be purely about creationism and evolution; nothing else had so far been mentioned.

Lets say I actually know what you are talking about, thats not what Im implying Im sure.
Dont divert attention from the facts. One is taught as absolute without ANY regard for the other, facts, or what people believe or want! It and its concepts are constantly changing and expanding for lack of evidence and the dumbing down and unknowingly ignorant acceptence by the controlled masses. Obviously.

Evolution has not become a scientific law in the same way that the effect of gravity on a macroscopic scale is regarded as a law.

give me a break dude..

(I use ""s ironically here, I'm getting bored of this argument)

wonder why...lol

spin spin

We are doing. It's called the study of evolutionary theory, and I couldn't agree with you more.

when you START with a conclusion and warp what you find to fit the mold it isnt science. Its propaganda.