How should evolution be taught differently?

[Jose]

Of course, we need to do a better job of teaching the science, and we need to teach evolution differently so that it makes sense...but that's another issue.

That's an interesting statement, "we need to teach evolution differently so that it makes sense". Are you implying that current methods of teaching evolution does not make sense? If so, what changes should occur to have it make sense?

I have claimed that we should teach evolution differently. I have my own opinions about current methods, and about alternative methods (which I use), but first let's think about it more fully:

• How many of us think that our high school classes gave us a good understanding of evolution? Maybe if we all think we understand it perfectly, and thus accept it as valid, then we don't need this thread. It doesn't seem that we all feel this way, however...
• What are some specific problems with current teaching of evolution? Let's be specific here, rather than just say "it's a fairy tale" or "it's a religion" or "it's not how God did it."
• What parts of evolutionary theory do you feel are unsupported, vague, or simply "asserted to be so"?
• What do you think needs to be done to fix this? Creationists may say "throw it out," but this isn't a likely option. Nor is it useful to say "teach creationism alongside," because that doesn't improve the teaching of evolution. We need recommendations for how to solve the problems revealed by the answers to the first questions.

[juliod]

It is for this reason that I find it terribly curious that such organizations even bother to attack evolution on its own turf.

Welcome, BTW.

I don't think they actually attack evolution on our own turf. They only do so in their own context. Apologetics, church meetings, religious publishers, and specialist web sites where alternative views are not welcome.

Creatonists get a pounding in the real world where they are not given an automatic special status. Hence of course the fact that there are no creationists among real active science researchers.

DanZ

[Nyril]

Creatonists get a pounding in the real world where they are not given an automatic special status. Hence of course the fact that there are no creationists among real active science researchers.

According to what? This is a pretty bold statement.

[Samurai Tailor]

Welcome, BTW.

Thank you.

I don't think they actually attack evolution on our own turf. They only do so in their own context. Apologetics, church meetings, religious publishers, and specialist web sites where alternative views are not welcome.

Except they attack scientific conclusions with what they apparently think is legitimate scientific counterargumentation. They pull out the Sarfatis and Rosses and whomever else has a "Dr." in front of his name, as if that fact alone lends scientific legitimacy. They helpfully publish a list of creationist arguments that they have deemed unworthy of use, ostensibly to distance themselves from bona fide wackos like Hovind.

Creatonists get a pounding in the real world where they are not given an automatic special status. Hence of course the fact that there are no creationists among real active science researchers.

This point is well-taken. It is perhaps fairer to say that they engage in a special-pleading type of science wherein they assume a vast philosophical naturalism-based conspiracy that installs evolution basically by default, whereupon they feel justified assuming their own conclusion in kind.

[juliod]

According to what? This is a pretty bold statement.

According to me. Are you calling me a liar?

It's true. You will look in vain for an actual creationist anywhere in the legitimate world of scientific research. They are eclusively in the realm of cranks.

Sometimes you hear of a "creationist" who is a scientist, but they never seem to support creation within their own field. So you might find a geologist who thinks evolution is false. A biologist who thinks the earth is 10,000 years old. Or an astrophysicist who says the probability of life arrising by chance is less than X percent.

But even those examples are vanishingly rare. I once went through a list of "creation scientists" posted on some web page. Aside from one or two people who I could not find at all, the rest had published nothing at all about creationism. And two of them evolutionary biologists. The list was just a contrived falsehood based (if based on anything at all) on out-of-context quotes.

So, in sum, I'd be very interested to hear of any actual researcher who supports (and researches) creationism.

DanZ

[Jose]

Ha! Juliod, you know you can't win that argument against your slippery opponents. What are the criteria by which you separate "real scientists" from "cranks"? If you use articles in refereed journals, you'll come up against the traditional complaint that evolutionists won't let contradictory evidence see the light of day. Note the statement from answersingenesis

Creationists such as Humphreys have extensive publications in mainstream journals on non-creationist topics. As mentioned previously, the article by Scott & Cole was a search for articles openly espousing creationism, which is a different matter altogether. Creationists who publish scientific research in mainstream journals have found that they can publish articles with data having creationist implications, but will not get articles with openly creationist conclusions published. When they attempt to do this, their articles are usually rejected. Those who are well-known to evolutionists as creationists have more difficulty even with articles which do not have obvious creationist implications.

Of course, there are several alternative explanations for why papers might not be published by a refereed journal, and the author's enthusiasm for creationism is only one of them. You may also come up against the creationists' own journals, refereed by creationists. Or, you may come up with the recent paper, in a real scientific journal, shepherded through by a creationist editor who quit as soon as he got that paper published.

What's missing from this complaint is the simple statement that, for any scientific conclusion, alternative mechanisms must be ruled out before settling on The Conclusion. In the case of studies that come down on the side of creationism, or a young earth, the other alternatives have not been ruled out. Failing to rule out alternatives will cause any paper to be rejected, regardless of who writes it.

If you use as your criterion, the earning of PhD's, you'll find lots of creationists. You can even find creationists who have published in good journals, like good ol' Jonathan Wells, commanded by Rev. Sun Young Moon to destroy Darwinism by getting a PhD and then writing anti-evolution stuff. Wells worked in the lab of one of my friends, and never once divulged his mission. In general, as you said, the articles published in traditional journals are not about creationism. As we see from the answersingenesis link above, excluding these papers is "a trick" meant to make it look like creation science isn't really science.

I guess your most important point is your last sentence: we need to know what scientists, if any, are actually studying creationism. What have they found?

[juliod]

If you use articles in refereed journals, you'll come up against the traditional complaint that evolutionists won't let contradictory evidence see the light of day.

Yeah, but it's bunk.

For one, in the old days, all scientists were creationists. It was a long process of scientific effort to overcome the traditional beliefs.

Secondly, there is no need to publish in the establishment journals. If the creationists had any data at all they could publish in their own media. If they were right it would be easy for everyone to see it. For example, creationist medicine would be much more successful than traditional science-based medicine.

Thirdly, there aren't even any papers with creationist-implications. This is what we mean when we say that evolution (biological) is the best-supported theory in science. All the data (100%) supports evolution, and none of the data (0%) supports creation. That may sound like an outrageously strong claim, but it is the correct claim nonetheless. There's no point in prevaricating about the bush.

Lastly, whenever someone does publish something (in real journals or otherwise) that has any supernaturalist implications, it is immediately decimated by critical analysis. Look, for example, at the recent prayer study supposedly done by OBGYNs at Columbia University. Of course, it was immediately crushed by such strong criticism that one wonders if the study was done at all. The first author is now in jail on unrelated fraud charges, the second author has left the US and refuses any comment, and the last author has written to the journal asking for his name to be removed from the paper.

BTW, the best working definition of a "crank" is someone who clings to their theory when it has been conclusively falsified (e.g. perpetual motion, etc).

DanZ

[Jose]

If you use articles in refereed journals, you'll come up against the traditional complaint that evolutionists won't let contradictory evidence see the light of day.

Yeah, but it's bunk.

We know it's bunk, but do the creationists who came up with it? If they do, then they are rather deceitful. If they don't, then we are up against a fundamental misunderstanding about what evidence is, and what science is. I suspect that, for many creationists, these things are a bit fuzzy. They may also be for non-creationists who are not scientists, but are they fuzzy in the same way?

This allows me to turn this discussion toward the topic of the thread. If there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes evidence, what constitutes valid interpretation of the evidence, and what science really is, how do we teach these things better? It would help if we knew what people think valid evidence and interpretations are, but I fear it will be difficult to articulate these things, if we can even convince anyone to try to do so.