Evolution question.

[path_of_one]

What I'm getting at, though, goes back to my pragmatic approach. People simply aren't capable of learning when they feel defensive. From what I've seen, if you attack religious belief in the classroom and set it up as "You must believe in evolution, not creationism, or you are a moron," people just get defensive and tune you out. It's an approach that simply doesn't work, so to me it has no practical value, and it is irrelevant if it is "right" or "just" in the senses you describe. All it does is create an environment of contention and students feel plowed over by the professor, and spend their time questioning the professor's salvation rather than focusing on learning.

In my approach, I tell students openly that I realize evolutionary theory contradicts many creation stories from a variety of religions. I tell them it's fine if they want to remain unbelievers in the theory, but I want them to understand what that in which they do not believe. I tell them it is actually quite important for them to understand things they wish to refute. I tell them I won't feel they are stupid or anything like that for doing so (and I truly won't- I disagree with lots of people but it won't make me feel they are stupid). Then, students feel free to explore the facts and ideas in class without feeling pressured to comply with my view on things. They feel they are able to retain their own religious beliefs if they want without ridicule.

The result is that, unlike many professors I have observed or had myself, I have never had students refuse to continue in the course due to the content. I have never had issues with students insisting creationism is science. By tackling the contradictions head on but providing a safe environment, the students feel good about learning. Many students have told me later that they were never open to learning about evolutionary theory before because they felt so pressured, but now they understood it and no longer felt it was a threat to their beliefs. Many, in a safe environment with all the data before them and a clear explanation, came to become evolutionists while still feeling capable of believing in their religion or spirituality more broadly.

I could certainly beat them over the head with it and attempt to strip away religious belief, but it is hardly a pragmatic way to go about it. Plus, it's just plain rude and other people know it. No one enjoys being told they are a moron in front of a class of people, and to do so just makes students distrustful of the prof and unhappy with the learning process.

I'm there to be a facilitator, not to open their head and pour in my own ideas. At least, that's how I see it.

[Penguin]

I've still got to go through all the replies properly but can I ask you please Tao;- What do you think was the "trigger" for evolution?
Many thanks indeed.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I see it the other way round. People who use the cover of religion to propagate blatant untruths like creationism in our schools should be subject to criminal prosecution. Evolution theory is not a vague possibility but as much a certainty as the sun will rise again tomorrow. We may not understand some of the fine details fully yet but the general principles are irrefutable and religious zealots/profiteers should not be allowed to say otherwise to our children. It is the creationists, not science, that has driven the need to even debate this amongst ourselves. It is them that should be forced to change their ways. If any aspect of religious teaching is in conflict with available empirical evidence to the contrary then it is religion that has to address that fact not science. One of my biggest issues with religions is that they are allowed to peddle what they know to be fiction or speculation as though it were truth. To me this is fraud and they should be held accountable as fraudsters. Its that black and white to me.

Brother Tao, a sincere question:

As an atheist, are you not using the cover of the religion-science disagreement over evolution as an excuse to promote your view and suppress others' views?

I see nothing wrong with religious beliefs. I see nothing wrong with scientific beliefs. I believe the two can coexist. I understand one must work at it in order for the two to coexist.

For a person limited by a religious POV, the science POV is meaningless and irrelevent. For a person limited by a scientific POV, a religious POV is meaningless and irrelevent. These are extremes, but there are plenty of people out there within one or the other camp. I disagree with both extremes, because my POV is not limited by either religion or science. My POV is *informed* by both religion and science, as well as other things.

Now, what I see you promoting is kinda like saying everybody must be a chef for a living. And you are wanting to butt heads with somebody who says everybody must be a plumber for a living. Both of you think the other is crazy. This is a working model of the logical fallacy of false dichotomy.

Science and religion are *not* an either / or proposition...unless you make it one. In so doing, you limit yourself within the frame of the side you choose.

Rather, I sense a disgust over politics, perhaps some issue at a school board or something? That would be a different matter altogether. We shouldn't throw babies out with the bathwater. Politics should be dealt with through political action, rather than censoring of other POV's.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Penguin

I've still got to go through all the replies properly but can I ask you please Tao;- What do you think was the "trigger" for evolution?
Many thanks indeed.

Change. No two things that we have been able to observe in this universe are identical. Look closely enough and even the most apparently similar things have differences. So much so that it is virtually a law of nature. But there are patterns. And these patterns are repeatedly, if imperfectly, reproduced according to the available constituents. The basic building blocks of life, for I must presume you mean organic evolution, follow patterns and are able to transmit that pattern through the exchange of R/DNA when organised into what we call a life form. How it first happened we may never know. But we do know that it did happen and that the elements required for that to happen are abundant throughout the observable universe. We can see the signature of the amino acids required for basic cell structure in the spectrographic analysis of distant star forming clouds of dust and gas. All the particular left handed amino acids in our own cells have been found in meteorites, which hints very strongly that life has the possibility to form wherever it finds conditions suitable for it to take hold. Life was most certainly not 'created' a few thousand years ago on the whim of some benevolent kind of white bearded Santa Claus.

tao

[Tao_Equus]

POO and Juan,

I feel like you are still missing my point. Which is that these kids you teach should never have been allowed to come to school already corrupted to the point where they are hostile to empirical fact. That children should be allowed to grow free from the conditioning of the sect and its lies. If you were to deliberately deform a child's limb then the child would be removed from you and you would be prosecuted. But religions get away with deforming children's minds with whatever sputum they wish to spit with impunity because they have to be respected because they declare religious freedom. Its a travesty on the human rights of these children.

I have read enough material on the creationists sites to know that the usual suspects are profiting very nicely and I KNOW also that is the ONLY reason they are on their 'crusade'. Such people are to my mind criminals. How many more centuries are we going to allow the charlatans to profit and disseminate utter crap, polluting each generation with dogmas that are counter to our progress and survival?

Sure I'm an atheist. And I believe science to be the best tool we have to study the observable. You cannot study the unobservable, it is speculation, philosophy...just ideas with no more credibility than the next persons. And that is how religion should be viewed and embraced. As ideas, not as facts. They are rarely taught that way. And each successive generation is filled up with the dogma of the sect as though it were truth when it patently is not. And I am more than a little tired of seeing this justified by 'religious freedom'. What about 'freedom' of mind being respected for once?


tao

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

That children should be allowed to grow free from the conditioning of the sect and its lies. If you were to deliberately deform a child's limb then the child would be removed from you and you would be prosecuted. But religions get away with deforming children's minds with whatever sputum they wish to spit with impunity because they have to be respected because they declare religious freedom. Its a travesty on the human rights of these children.

Selection, selection. Its not possible for you to replace the parents of all of these kids under the pretense that you would do a better job. You must take into account the parent-child connection and the fact that children inherit parental baggage -- its part of the process as you say. Wipe out inheritance and apparent weaknesses, and you could wipe out a hidden feature that strengthens the species. Diversity, diversity.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I feel like you are still missing my point. Which is that these kids you teach should never have been allowed to come to school already corrupted to the point where they are hostile to empirical fact. That children should be allowed to grow free from the conditioning of the sect and its lies. If you were to deliberately deform a child's limb then the child would be removed from you and you would be prosecuted. But religions get away with deforming children's minds with whatever sputum they wish to spit with impunity because they have to be respected because they declare religious freedom. Its a travesty on the human rights of these children.

I have read enough material on the creationists sites to know that the usual suspects are profiting very nicely and I KNOW also that is the ONLY reason they are on their 'crusade'. Such people are to my mind criminals. How many more centuries are we going to allow the charlatans to profit and disseminate utter crap, polluting each generation with dogmas that are counter to our progress and survival?

Sure I'm an atheist. And I believe science to be the best tool we have to study the observable. You cannot study the unobservable, it is speculation, philosophy...just ideas with no more credibility than the next persons. And that is how religion should be viewed and embraced. As ideas, not as facts. They are rarely taught that way. And each successive generation is filled up with the dogma of the sect as though it were truth when it patently is not. And I am more than a little tired of seeing this justified by 'religious freedom'. What about 'freedom' of mind being respected for once?


tao

What if your child came to believe in God on his or her own? Would you resort to 'conditioning' your child out of it, or would you grant your child 'freedom of mind?'

[Bruno's logic]

Here is a video of evolution in progress.....

YouTube - ORIGINAL Elephant Painting

~bruno

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Dream

Selection, selection. Its not possible for you to replace the parents of all of these kids under the pretense that you would do a better job. You must take into account the parent-child connection and the fact that children inherit parental baggage -- its part of the process as you say. Wipe out inheritance and apparent weaknesses, and you could wipe out a hidden feature that strengthens the species. Diversity, diversity.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

What if your child came to believe in God on his or her own? Would you resort to 'conditioning' your child out of it, or would you grant your child 'freedom of mind?'

We make laws and create the social structure necessary to prevent our children smoking, having sex, drinking alcohol, driving cars, buying porn and seeing 'scary movies'. It is not like we do not already have the wherewithal to nurture our children without some cultural barriers that declare certain areas 'adult only'. The Bible and Koran are both full of violent and pornographic imagery we would not accept from any other source. Why the hypocrisy? Because the religions know full well, bring up the average child free from the brain-wipe and then the average adult it develops into could never swallow that kind of irrational nonsense.

I brought my child up as free from religious influence as I was capable. What he chooses in his life is his business. I would will continue to love and support him whether he becomes a priest or a psychopath or as he is hoping to become, an architect.


tao

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

...I can only guess from the way you phrased your post that you are quite young. My advice to you is to remember that religion has a long and illustrious track record of producing liars. Science does not have all the answers, but at least it searches for them with integrity.


tao

You're kidding right? The integrity of anything is only as sound as the person using it...science is no different than religion and that aspect.

Also, I would have asked the question pretty much the same way, and I'm not that young...lol

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

You're kidding right? The integrity of anything is only as sound as the person using it...science is no different than religion and that aspect.

If you had continued reading you might have seen me admit that statement was a bad one.

Also, I would have asked the question pretty much the same way, and I'm not that young...lol

Maybe you would have. Had I not known you a little I might then have assumed you to be quite young. The subject is covered in this country quite comprehensively in school science lessons. Forgive me for presuming that all adults have such basic knowledge.

tao

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

If you had continued reading you might have seen me admit that statement was a bad one.




Maybe you would have. Had I not known you a little I might then have assumed you to be quite young. The subject is covered in this country quite comprehensively in school science lessons. Forgive me for presuming that all adults have such basic knowledge.

tao

Well I am a scientist and an engineer. And I still would have asked the question the same way.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

The subject is covered in this country quite comprehensively in school science lessons. Forgive me for presuming that all adults have such basic knowledge.
tao

I don't even have basic knowledge of Science I wasn't offered it as an option at school and took other subjects.
I know what a Bunson burner is though and the periodic table

[Dogbrain]

Originally Posted by Penguin

If us humans were supposed to have evolved from primates, apes etc how come they still exist today?
If something "evolves" all previous is superceded and the new replaces

Since when? That is not how evolution works. Your biology teachers need to be flogged for gross incompetence.

Evolution is not like replacing an old model of car with a newer one. It is not consumerist in nature.

[Dogbrain]

Originally Posted by Penguin

I've still got to go through all the replies properly but can I ask you please Tao;- What do you think was the "trigger" for evolution?
Many thanks indeed.

There was no trigger. That is, at no time in the past has life ever been stable, unevolving, unchanging. Anything alive has evolution inherent in the instability of living existence. Instability is inherent in our universe, down to the subatomic level.