Should Creationism be taught in classrooms?

[otseng]

Should Creationism be taught in classrooms (as science)?
More specifically, should it be taught in public schools?
If so, how should it be taught as a science?

[Jose]

They have explained it, in great detail. You might need a college-level physics course to understand all the details.

Which I have. The site you posted says nothing about the original experiments how we deduce half life data. How do we estimate the half life of an element? Since this is fundamental, it should be explained by you rather than ignored. Most tests mesuring half life assume consistent chemical environment, and standard temp and pressure in their models for mesuring the Kinetic rate of electron movements. But how many experiments on this data try and recreate the actual high temp and pressure as well as the chemcial conditions to prove that Physical conditions do not prove radioactive decay?

Whenever I work with P-32, I have to worry about the half-life, which is about 2 weeks. I have to get the experiments done within the first couple of weeks after I order my material, because after that there's too much contamination by breakdown products. Now, here's a funny thing. No matter what I do, the danged stuff always has exactly half the radioactivity after one half life as it did before. It's always the same two weeks. I've done this a lot, over many, many half-lives, and it always comes out the same. Here's another funny thing. Freezing it at -80C or boiling it doesn't have any effect. I haven't tried really high pressures and temperatures, because I haven't had reason to do so--but radionuclide chemists have done such things and have reported the results. They did so sufficiently long ago, and often enough, that the results are generally accepted as "reproducible" and "well known." In a nutshell, though, this should give you a sense of how half-lives are measured.

For long-lived elements, of course, we can't sit around and wait a full half-life. But there's a strange thing, which is true of the elements with shorter half-lives (which therefore provide confidence about the method). We can measure the decay from a sample at several different times, then make a graph of decays/minute as a function of time. We get a curve from which the half-life is easily determined. Where we can use both methods, it works every time. To say that the half-lives of the long-lived elements are "chosen" and not "measured" is something of a misrepresentation.

Fine, just so long as the changes are within the species. Otherwise, it is macro-evolution. But I don't believe that mutations cause changes within the species, rather it is the reach of the gene pool of the specie that determines what characteristics the variation will have.

The "gene pool" is all of the genetic variants of the genes in a population. Different versions of the same gene differ from each other by DNA sequence differences. How do these differences arise? By mutation. That's what mutations are. Once a mutation occurs and is inherited (as with hemophilia in Queen Victoria's case), the new version of the gene becomes just another variation in the gene pool.

OK, if you want to call it mutation, I can accept that only if you apply it to MUTATIONAL CHANGE WITHIN SPECIES.

I can buy this as long as we agree that mutations are changes in DNA, that they happen though errors in DNA replication or DNA repair, and that individuals (plants, animals, people...) born with a mutation in the DNA of all their cells may exhibit a change in some characteristic that is determined by the gene that has the mutation in it. (I think we've said this, but I thought it would be good to restate it, just to be sure.)

This gets us to the Big Question. You've brought it up thus:

The Creator built into the original KINDS a limited gene pool that would be fulfillled in the subsequent variations. When I look at butteflies, I am reminded of this. There was an original male and female butterfly which carried the limited gene pool for the thousands of varitations within the kind. The same applies to all species. God designed diversity and variation, within the kinds, through the limited gene pools.

I'll expand it to include not just the gene pool, but the fundamental notion of "each kind reproducing according to its kind."

I can't buy is the idea that all of the variation, the entire gene pool, could have been crammed into the original individuals that God created. (Maybe you're not saying this, but it sounds like it). We'd have to conclude that Adam and Eve, between them, had some 6.5 billion genetic variations somehow lurking in their DNA without showing up. They had billions of dominant alleles that didn't show. Maybe we could wiggle out of Adam and Eve, the "pre-flood" folks when the world was supernaturally different, but not the descendents of Noah, when the world became "current." Why doesn't this make sense? Because it requires too much DNA in the oldest ancestors. It violates genetic principles. It requires that God step in and make genetics work differently. Now, if we want to say that God did it, then we can...but it's not a scientific explanation, and can't go into science classes. It's much, much simpler to have mutations occur as they do, causing occasional changes in DNA sequence.

So, if we only ever have mutations occurring within a species, which makes sense, since they occur only within individuals, then we have to wonder how evolutionary theory would imagine change could ever occur. I've said before that it happens just as the Bible says it does: each kind reproduces according to its kind. What happens is

So, individuals compete for food, resources, and yes, survival. If they are good competitors, they leave more offspring than the individuals they out-compete. Whatever mutations they have in their DNA are the mutations that become common in later generations. Whatever mutations were in the DNA of the individuals that were out-competed become rare. This is classic microevolution--change in allele frequencies.

You appear to agree:

Again, this is fine and does not bear on macroevolution. But I guess you are saying that enough "micro-evolutions" have resulted in macro-evolution. Is that basicallly what you're saying?

That is, you seem to accept this a mechanism of microevolution. You don't like the idea that it could, over a long time, result in different-looking kinds of animals that cannot interbreed, and are therefore different species. As I noted, this sounds like the current YEC view. I'd noted that the old view said microevolution was impossible--and a lot of them said that. I'd have to scrounge around to find examples, but I don't think it would be helpful. There's little point in mining for old quotes.

Ok, bottom line as you see it: Different species were produced from original species through the accumulative effect of mutations?
[quote="Jose"No. Simply accumulating mutations is not enough. It is also necessary to apply selection.

what does the selecting?

This weeds out the "bad" mutations--which, as you have noted, is the majority of them.

How does this work? Who has observed it to work. How do you know it's selection? It sounds like "selection" has intelligence. Isn't this really just theory?[/quote]
It does look a lot like intelligence, doesn't it? It's not, though. That's why I suggested looking at my simple-minded simulation to see how it works. No intelligence is necessary--just some individuals having traits that make them better competitors in their particular environment, and other individuals having traits that make them worse competitors. You know these are true, since you know the gene pool has variations, and you know that if you plant a bunch of seeds from a plant, some of the offspring grow better than others (or if you look at a litter of puppies, there's often a "runt of the litter," one that got a bad combination of genetic variations, and doesn't grow as well).

So, that's how it works. Who has observed it working? Many of us. There are many examples of "pests" that develop resistance to pesticides. You can look them up if you like. There is also the classic example of bacteria that develop resistance to antibiotics (although there are two routes for this, one of which is mutation and the other of which is plasmid transfer; both have been documented).

There is also the example, in a virus this time (but the principle is the same) of looking at the DNA sequences of virus particles in a single individual during the course of HIV infection. Initially, the sequence is "normal" for HIV. Upon treatment with AZT, the viral load goes down--but eventually comes back. Sequencing the AZT-resistant virus shows mutations in the gene that codes for the protein that AZT binds to. The mutations make AZT unable to block the enzyme--hence the AZT resistence. Sure, this is a virus, but it uses DNA and normal protein synthesis methods to grow. It even uses human protein synthesis methods, so this gives us some insight into things that happen in humans as well.

So, there are many examples.

How do we know it's "selection"? Because that is the definition of "selection." Environmental conditions are such that some individuals (individual pests; individual bacteria; individual virus particles) have more offspring, and other individuals have fewer. Here, I've mentioned an extreme case: a chemical compound that severely impairs most individuals (selects against them), but allows mutant individuals that are resistant to survive and have offspring (selects for them). That's the definition, with examples.

These are examples of humans changing the environment--but the pests/bacteria/viruses don't know that. They just live their lives, acquire mutations at some rate, and if the environment happens to be kind to them, they live. If the environment happens to be unkind, they die. That's selection.

Whether such mutations will happen is unpredictable. In dog breeding, we've created a lot of what I'd call macroevolution (changes in morphology) without any speciation.

So you are using macroevolution to apply to change WITHIN the specie. Is this the major view held in evolution?

I did use it that way because, as I'd mentioned earlier, yes--the evolutionary biologists that I know use "macroevolution" to refer to "changes in morphology." Whether the changes are within a species, or between species is irrelevant. However, since the term is used differently among creationists, I'll try not to use it at all, to avoid confusion.

However, this still doesn't convince me to classify homosexuality as immoral, however repugnant certain behaviors might be to "straight" people.

Does human nature not teach us that a man's body was not made for another man? Why didn't AIDS hit the heterosexual community the way it did the homosexual? Do you think anal sex is natural? Did the lesson of Sodom and Gomorrah not teach us anything?

Only a hundred years ago, however, it might have been a logical thing to do. Then, and for all of time before that, no one knew why it happened.

It 's the same reason that explains any other type of immoral behavior: sin.

Human nature does teach us that, just as you suggest. That's the very reason that anal sex between men seems repugnant to most of us. Our brains are wired--through the selection of genetically-coded instincts that maximize our ability to have more offspring--to seek heterosexual sex. Our brains are wired to feel pleasure when we look at members of the opposite sex. They are even wired, it seems, with a kind of definition of what constitutes "attractiveness"--and this version of "attractiveness" seems to be genetically variable and under selection, since different countries/cultural groups may have different criteria for "attractiveness."

So imagine having your current body style, but the hard-wired brain response of someone of the opposite sex. You'd look at others of your own sex, and have that "pleasure" response. You'd look at other of the opposite sex, and have no particular response at all. To me, that seems really weird. However, it seems to be how it works.

I have friends who have "come out" (to my surprise) and told me that they have had no choice in the matter. It's just how their brains work. Pretending to "revert" is not, for them, an option. For those who are less extreme in their mixed-gender wiring, however, it seems to be possible to work really hard at following the "norms" of society. One off the things that many of these people find helpful is a serious commitment to religion. As you say, they feel born again. As good an outcome as this may be, it still doesn't convince me that we have any reason to call homosexuality a sin. I see it as a biological fact, like having blue eyes--or, like myself, having a funny-shaped lumbar vertebra that gives me back pains sometimes (which is a developmental mistake, not genetic).

It's like the geologic column which is supposed to outline the fossil record from the earliest life forms, but nowhere on earth has anyone ever the series of rock layers that comport with the drawing. It's all hypothesis.

This is another tired argument. You can go to thousands of places in the world and see a perfect geological column and a drawing to match for that section of the column. For these places, there is no hypothesis about it. It's there. It's true that there is no place that has a single, tall cliff with all of the strata neatly visible. However, all of the parts are visible if you visit enough places. There is enough overlap to tell what's what--though, of course, some strata are really thick in some places and much thinner in other places, or even non-existent in some places.
For instance, you won't find the sediments from a lake bed outside of the region where the lake was. Obviously, the stylized drawing of the "whole" geological column is an illustrative representation that is meant to give you a sense of what's going on. Then, when you go into the field and actually look, you can relate the real world that you see before you to the relative locations of the other parts. It's much like looking at your watch and finding that it's 11:15. You know what this means because you have a general overall conception of the entire day, and 11:15 is kinda in the middle.

[Jose]

Daystar: sorry to take so long to respond to your Gould quotes, but I've had a thing or to to attend to. So:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct funtional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistant and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
(Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University.)

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of Paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
(Dr. Stephan J Gould, Harvard Paleontologist, "Evolution, Erratic Pace")

"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."
(Dr. Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].)

These are devastating statements to gradualism by a man who is respected by most evolutionists.

Indeed, they are devastating statements concerning gradualism. Gould didn't care for gradualism. Neither do I. I think the idea has pretty much been thrown out. But, let's look at the "mined" quotes more carefully: For the first one, Gould really said:

" 2. The saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary states between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. St. George Mivart (1871), Darwin's most cogent critic, referred to it as the dilemma of "the incipient stages of useful structures" -- of what possible benefit to a reptile is two percent of a wing? The dilemma has two potential solutions. The first, preferred by Darwinians because it preserves both gradualism and adaptation, is the principle of preadaptation: the intermediate stages functioned in another way but were, by good fortune in retrospect, pre-adapted to a new role they could play only after greater elaboration. Thus, if feathers first functioned "for" insulation and later "for" the trapping of insect prey (Ostrom 1979) a proto-wing might be built without any reference to flight.

I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaptation, but the other alternative, treated with caution, reluctance, disdain or even fear by the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in the light of renewed interest in development: perhaps, in many cases, the intermediates never existed. I do not refer to the saltational origin of entire new designs, complete in all their complex and integrated features -- a fantasy that would be truly anti-Darwinian in denying any creativity to selection and relegating it to the role of eliminating new models. Instead, I envisage a potential saltational origin for the essential features of key adaptations. Why may we not imagine that gill arch bones of an ancestral agnathan moved forward in one step to surround the mouth and form proto-jaws? Such a change would scarcely establish the Bauplan of the gnathostomes. So much more must be altered in the reconstruction of agnathan design -- the building of a true shoulder girdle with bony, paired appendages, to say the least. But the discontinuous origin of a proto-jaw might set up new regimes of development and selection that would quickly lead to other, coordinated modifications." (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pp. 126-127)

Here, you see, he is setting up his argument against gradualism to explain his reasoning for punctuated equilibrium.

Your second quote is a simple statement that transitional fossils are rare, something with which everyone agrees. It is also a statement that we don't have examples of every fossil in every lineage of every life form on earth, therefore when we construct a Tree, we are presenting inferences. Now, in 1980, this was pretty much true. Trees were based on morphological evidence, most of it from extant species. Many fossil species could be placed on the tree by virtue of morphological similarities. However, without fossils from 100% of the earth's living things, we will never be able to show exactly what any lineage is. We can't even trace our own family trees very far back, even with historical documents, so how can we expect to trace every lineage that ever existed?

There is another point, however: it's impossible to put the entire tree, with all known data, into a textbook. The pages are too small, and the number of organisms too large. Therefore, it is necessary to leave out much of the information and present a simplified diagram. Of course the trees that adorn our textbooks have lines that are imperfect.

There is a difference, however, with more recent trees of DNA sequence relationships. These are merely a pictorial representation of the numbers of differences between organisms. We could present the data in a table of numbers just as well, though it would be difficult to interpret. With these trees, you can't argue that the lines are "just inference." Their lengths are scaled to match the numbers of differences. For these trees, the pattern is real. The only question is how the pattern came about.

It's interesting that the trees based on morphological data and the trees that are based on DNA sequences happen to match pretty well--and happen to match the inferences from the fossil record, even though they are assembled from completely different data sets. Gosh what a tricky God, to set it up so cleverly!

Your third quote, another of the standard "mined quotes" that can be found on many creationist web sites, begins thus:

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks.
Palenontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

As you see, this was written before Gould had fully developed the concept of punctuated equilibrium (it was, after all, written in 1977, reprinted in '82), before we had sufficient DNA sequences for genetic phylogeny, and when the fossil record was one of the main data sources. Gould is merely pointing out that the ancient idea of gradual, constant, linear change isn't true. Again, this is the reasoning for abandoning gradualism: it doesn't fit the data.

So, what does fit the data? Gould's punctuated equilibrium does, but it's a nastily big term. All it says is that, if you look at the fossil record, you see that there are long periods of little change in the fossils (equilibrium), "punctuated" (broken up) by shorter periods when changes occur. This is not "gradualism" but "fast and slowism." It is completely irrelevant to the genetic mechanism of evolutionary change (ie, how evolution works); it merely addresses the timing.

OK...what would cause a period of little change? That's easy: no significant environmental change. New mutations appear in the DNA of individual organisms, but in general, none of these mutations are improvements that help these individuals out-compete others in the population. These new genetic variations never become common, and mostly are lost. This is the kind of thing that we typically experience in our lives--individuals (plants, animals, people) are born (are plants born? probably not...but you get the idea), and the "runt of the litter" doesn't do so well.

What about a period of rapid change? Just the opposite of the above: change in the environment. Look at the great diversification of mammals after the extinction of the dinosaurs. Why didn't mammals diversify before that? Two good reasons: (1) the dinosaurs kept eating them, and (2) mutations that would enable some kind of mammal to move into a new ecological niche would be only partially effective. That is, a mutation that enables a small, skulking, night-time seed-eater to browse on leaves in the daytime would produce small, skulking animals that can eat leaves, but are not very good at it. In a world full of very effective leaf-eaters (herbivorous dinosaurs), these small, skulking guys wouldn't have a chance. They'd be out-competed. But, once the dinos were wiped out, the small skulkers had no predators, and no competition--so lousy leaf-eaters survived. It's easy to see how a few additional mutations would enable the descendents of lousy leaf eaters to be better leaf eaters, and a few more mutations to enable their descendents to be really good leaf eaters.

I'll say something I've said before here: the period of "rapid change" that we are talking about here is still a long time. From the extinction of the dinosaurs to the end of the major mammalian radiation is about 10 million years. At the level of individual animals, and numbers of generations, this is still very gradual change. It's only on a geological time scale measured in billions of years that it seems "rapid."

Having said all of this, I will also say that Gould's insight, and willingness to criticize the models that people thought made sense, led to better understanding of the data, and thereby to newer, more robust models. These "mined quotes" are not examples of scientists saying evolution is bunk. They are examples of scientists looking for weaknesses in the specifics of their own ideas about the mechanism of evolution (not its validity overall), so they can develop more accurate models. Gould was talking about timing. To talk further about mechanism, we have to go back to our prior discussion about genetics, mutations, and selection.

[potwalloper]

I have just come across this forum and am amazed that in America you are actually having a debate about the teaching of creationism in the classroom!

Creationism is a global myth and no matter how you try to cloak it in the respectable clothing of science it remains just that - a myth.

Myths should not be taught to children as part of a science curriculum except as a means of demonstrating how the principles of science have enabled (some of us) to find a means of explaining natural phenomena that is not based upon illogical and subjective principles and will survive a rigorous peer review.

Please leave creationism for the lessons on goblins, fairies, dragons, wizards and all other reflections of the boundless human imagination and save science lessons for just that - science.

The concept of religion fails when subjected to an objective scrutiny and as such should be discarded.


Nothing exists unless it can be measured...

[Jose]

Welcome aboard, potwalloper! Surprising though it may seem, there are indeed many in the US who believe that creationism should be taught in classrooms. Among them is our self-proclaimed messenger from God, George W. Bush.

"L.A. Times, Thursday, 11/4/99, p. A35. Bush Sees Place for Teaching on Creation. From Reuters "Wilmington, Del. -- Republican presidential front-runner George W. Bush said Wednesday that he thinks schools should teach 'different forms of how the world was formed,' with evolution taught alongside creationism.

As the political pressure mounts to bring creationism into classrooms, currently in the disguise of "intelligent design," there is considerable value to discussing the issues dispassionately. It's a bit of a challenge, sometimes, since it is so easy to drop back to mere arguing. Still, it's an interesting exercise, and requires some skill in presenting the data in a convincing way. Think of it as practice for the discussions before school boards and, potentially, the courts.

It's an interesting thing, of course. The issue derives from biblical literalism and strict interpretation of Genesis. If we phrase it as "religious fundamentalism," we come dangerously close to comparison with the Taliban, so we won't say that, OK?

[TQWcS]

Nothing exists unless it can be measured...

How can something not exist because it can't be measured? Since I can't measure my consciousness does it not exist? When we die does the universe cease to exist because we are not here to measure it? Some say the universe is infinite some say it is finite does our inability to measure the universe prove our inexistence?

The concept of religion fails when subjected to an objective scrutiny and as such should be discarded.

If you are going to make such a claim shouldn't you back it up? I could make the same claim about evolution.

[Lucifer]

Nothing exists unless it can be measured...

How can something not exist because it can't be measured? Since I can't measure my consciousness does it not exist? When we die does the universe cease to exist because we are not here to measure it? Some say the universe is infinite some say it is finite does our inability to measure the universe prove our inexistence?

The concept of religion fails when subjected to an objective scrutiny and as such should be discarded.

If you are going to make such a claim shouldn't you back it up? I could make the same claim about evolution.

If you meant consciousness, as in you're awake or not, then that's quite obvious, isn't it? If you meant conscience, there are probably tests that can determine that. Otherwise, go ask a psychologist. When we die, the universe ceases to exist because of your perspective. Just because you can't measure it, doesn't mean somebody else can't. Measurement does not require an actual person to measure something; it just has to be theoretically and conceptually measurable, even if we can't, just as we don't know where an electron in an atom is (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. At least we can measure its probability.). As for measuring the universe, it's still measurable, infinity or not. If it's infinite, you would have had to measure it somehow to conclude that it is infinite. Unfortunately, it is true: religion fails at objective scrutiny. Note the keyword "objective", which means perspective does not interfere. And of all those times religious people have tried to "prove" God exists, they couldn't do it objectively. In many places and debates, religion could not support its claims with evidence, besides saying that they saw it (that's subjective, not objective. They often don't form experiments around those.).

[TQWcS]

If you meant consciousness, as in you're awake or not, then that's quite obvious, isn't it?

Is it? I believe this has been debated by philosophers for a few thousand years.

I don't undertsand how measurablity proves existance and how it can also prove nonexistance. After all our measurements are inherently wrong because they are abstract representations of reality. Richard P. Feynman talked about this in one of his papers. I wish I could remember which one...

If it's infinite, you would have had to measure it somehow to conclude that it is infinite.

As far as I know our measurements point both ways? Is it infinite and finite?

[Lucifer]

Is it? I believe this has been debated by philosophers for a few thousand years.

I don't undertsand how measurablity proves existance and how it can also prove nonexistance. After all our measurements are inherently wrong because they are abstract representations of reality. Richard P. Feynman talked about this in one of his papers. I wish I could remember which one...

Now I just realized measurability applies more to physical objects, more than anything else. I don't know who wrote the original post, but I think it would support the non existance of a physical object if it weren't measurable. Be careful how you use the word "prove"--in science, there is no such thing. But if it's not physical, maybe it's just something we made up--maybe we made it up to attempt explaining the irrational. Like religion.

As far as I know our measurements point both ways? Is it infinite and finite?

Well, someone should have at least tried to measure it, and finding out that it is too large to measure, would probably conclude that it is infinite. At least it shows that there is an amount of something, even if it is astronomically large.

[chrispalasz]

Should Creationism be taught in Public Schools as a science?

Hands down - YES.

It IS a science. God created everything. God created science. God defines science, and not the other way around. There is no science apart from God... and any attempt to seperate God from Science will HAVE to be based on lies.

Do we want to teach students lies? Nope.

Yes, it's that simple.

[perfessor]

It (creationism) IS a science. God created everything. God created science. God defines science, and not the other way around. There is no science apart from God... and any attempt to seperate God from Science will HAVE to be based on lies.

By extension, there is no art without God - no mathematics apart from God, no language, no history - you would have to teach every single subject from a God-based perspective.

You know, they have special schools for people who believe that stuff. They're called "PRIVATE".

Do we want to teach students lies? Nope.

Good - we agree on that part.