How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

[Purple Knight]

This is not a question of whether or not evolution is crazy, but how crazy it seems at first glance.

That is, when we discard our experiences and look at claims as if through new eyes, what do we find when we look at evolution? I Believe we can find a great deal of common ground with this question, because when I discard my experience as an animal breeder, when I discard my knowledge, and what I've been taught, I might look at evolution with the same skepticism as someone who has either never been taught anything about it, or someone who has been taught to distrust it.

Personally my mind goes to the keratinised spines on the tongues of cats. Yes, cats have fingernails growing out of their tongues! Gross, right? Well, these particular fingernails have evolved into perfect little brushes for the animal's fur. But I think of that first animal with a horrid growth of keratin on its poor tongue. The poor thing didn't die immediately, and this fits perfectly with what I said about two steps back paying for one forward. This detrimental mutation didn't hurt the animal enough for the hapless thing to die of it, but surely it caused some suffering. And persevering thing that he was, he reproduced despite his disability (probably in a time of plenty that allowed that). But did he have the growths anywhere else? It isn't beyond reason to think of them protruding from the corners of his eyes or caking up more and more on the palms of his hands. Perhaps he had them where his eyelashes were, and it hurt him to even blink. As disturbing as my mental picture is of this scenario, this sad creature isn't even as bad off as this boar, whose tusks grew up and curled until they punctured his brain.





This is a perfect example of a detrimental trait being preserved because it doesn't hurt the animal enough to kill it before it mates. So we don't have to jump right from benefit to benefit. The road to a new beneficial trait might be long, going backwards most of the way, and filled with a lot of stabbed brains and eyelids.

Walking backwards most of the time, uphill both ways, and across caltrops almost the entire trip?

I have to admit, thinking about walking along such a path sounds like, at very least, a very depressing way to get from A to B. I would hope there would be a better way.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Scientists who express skepticism about evolution and have also signed some form of contract agreeing to work, study in some specific way.

Well that's kinda the point. Although the people who work at AiG and ICR express skepticism about evolution ("denial" is more accurate), they aren't scientists. They agreed to work under a specifically anti-scientific framework, which excludes them from the category of "scientists". Given the nature of those frameworks they're more accurately described as Christian apologists.

I don't thinks that's an honest definition of a scientist at all, so here's one for you:

A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.

If a person does that then they are - like it or not - a scientist, your claim that that ethic is inconsistent with a simulatneous reverence for scripture is just an opinion. The vast majority of contributors to the scientific revolution, the enlightemnent were Christians, they also held to a set of beliefs, they too regarded scripture as a source of authority. They are the reason we have radio, antibiotics, aircraft, lazers, light bulbs, television, cars etc etc etc - these people were scientists and their adherence to a set of beliefs about God were completely irrelevant.

What is your reason for wanting to prevent a biology teacher from bringing alternative views to the attention of students?

For the same reason I don't want geography teachers to teach flat-earthism, a history teacher to teach holocaust denialism, a health teacher to teach that storks bring babies, or any other K-12 teacher to do anything like that.....it's not their job and it's not how K-12 education works. Specific to science, the job of a K-12 science teacher is to make sure the students get a good basic understanding of 1) how science works, and 2) what the state of the current science is.

And really, I think #2 is the key point here. Whether folks like you like it or not, the fact is creationism has absolutely zero standing in science (and that includes ID creationism). None. Nada. Zip. The world's earth and life sciences community has operated under an old earth, evolutionary history framework for well over a century, while creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to our understanding of the world in at least 100 years.

So there's absolutely no legitimate scientific or educational reason for a teacher to bring it into he classroom. I know Christians like you really would like them to, just as I'm sure there are flat-earth believing parents who'd like the geography teacher to introduce their beliefs into the classroom as well, but just because you believe something that doesn't justify teaching it in schools.

How can a student get a good idea of how science works if all you do is teach them how you think it should work? If I were a geography teacher I likely would set aside a lesson or two on the flat earth hypothsis. Just because a hypothesis or theory might no longer be prevalent is no reason to pretend it never was prevalent. The flat earth hypothsis was a very reasonable hypothesis given the knowledge and data available at the time. It is a perfectly sound scientific hypothesis within the context and date of the day.

So a "creationist organization" is simply a collective that advocates that the universe was created? or does your definition require that it also has some statement of beliefs too?

No they don't have to have a statement of beliefs in order to be a creationist organization.

Indeed, rather than on whether they have or have not agreed to some statement of beliefs, the merits of their cases is the only thing that matters, agreed?

It depends on the audience. If we're talking about scientists, then yes the only thing that matters is the case a person makes. If Joe Schmoe off the street submits a good manuscript to a journal, they will evaluate it based on its contents rather than on who wrote it.

So its all a matter of which authority one chooses from among the many available, the many journals available?

However, when it comes to the general public and who they trust, then from a practical standpoint most of the time the identity, background, and qualifications of the person will matter. That's because most people have neither the expertise nor the time to fully and properly evaluate Joe Schmoe's arguments. Instead they'll see that he's just some guy off the street with no background, experience, or education in the field of science he's speaking to, and so they'll just stick with the general view of the actual experts.

I am a member of the general public and I do not see it that way at all. I do not rely solely on some autjhority when evaluating a claim, instead, I rely on my education to guide me.

No, and I never suggested that.

So you do think there should be limits on what sort of "alternative views" teachers can bring into the classroom? Okay, then perhaps you can describe how that should work. Who sets these limits? What should those limits be based on?

Of course, this is an important point, a very important point. I think we should place more emphasis on the history of science, we should teach older models and theories so that students can see how a once apparently valid model can later turn out to be wrong. We should encourage vigilance so that they too can or might encounter such a situation in their own work. That should be part of scienced education. If something truly is groundless, without merit then let it stand or fall, let the student develop the skills needed to reach that decision on their own.

As for limits, well I'd never advocate referring to a hypothsis or theory as a "fact", I'd never teach something in a science class that was contrary to the scientific method.

I asked if you think there should be some official definition of what is truth when it comes to science and that questioning that truth should be discouraged. I do not see how encouraging questions can be equated to a "free-for-all, where teachers can teach anything and everything they personally want".

No, there's no official definition of "truth" in science. And no, questions from students should not be discouraged.

I think that it is the place do it, how else can students get familiarized with what it means to think, to question authority, to probe and challenge.

It's one thing for the students to ask questions, it's something else entirely for a teacher to prod them into questioning scientific conclusions that have been agreed to for well over a century, thereby giving the students the false impression that those conclusions aren't really solid.

What is wrong with suggesting that "scientific conclusions that have been agreed to for well over a century" can or should be questioned? what if such an established conclusion was in fact wrong despite being accepted for several centuries?

Just as I don't want a history teacher giving students the impression that maybe the holocaust didn't really happen, I don't want a biology teacher giving students the impression that maybe evolution doesn't happen. Both would be a terrible disservice to the students.

What is wrong with teaching that there are some people who think the "holocaust" did not happen? Teaching that there is or was such a view, albeit a minority, is not the same as teaching that view.

Tell me what do you mean by "convincing the scientists" when the teachers might themselves be scientists?

If creationists want their ideas to be taught in schools, then they need to do what all others have done, i.e., convince the scientific community first.

Firstly, there is no such body as the "scientific community". Secondly, delegating the decision as to what is or is not scienticially plausible to some etehreal authority is not part of the scientific method. If one did make a discovery that undermines some existing orthodoxy then how does seeking the approval of that orthoodxy help? the very fact you are questioing something that we know the orthodoxy - by definition - will not question, is clearly a fruitless endeavor.

For example if the people comprising this orthodoxy, this officialdom, have all been taught "evolution is fact" and you have evidence that it might not actually be a fact then how do you think that othodoxy will respond? I suspect they will respond differently to a group that were not taught "evolution is a fact".

This is why teaching such a lie - as is done today, routinely - is so dangerous, it undermines science.

They need to submit manuscripts to relevant journals, present at scientific conferences, and the like. Then if they manage to convince the scientific community that they're correct, it will become the current state of the science and schools will eagerly teach it.

But for decades, creationists have been trying to do an end-run around that process and take their talking points straight to schools even though they've not managed to convince the scientific community of their validity, and in some cases the scientific community has resoundingly rejected them (e.g., ID creationism). IOW, they want their stuff taught as science even though the world's scientists have rejected it.

There is no "scientific community". Some people have done that I agree, but it is some, just as some police officers rape, some doctors kill and so on. Do we conclude that all doctors, all police are a threat? No we do not.

Of course it's subjective, everything I experience is subjective and this is true for all of us, all our experiences are subjective and we must rely on our own reasoning and knowledge to make decisions including decisions as to who we agree or disagree with, I do not delegate my decision making to others, if I am going to believe some proposition is true then I am the one forming that belief not someone else, not some book, not some authority and not some pop-scientist.

That's why it's important to gauge your level of bias on this issue.

Very true.

I don't know the answer to that question.

I find that difficult to believe. You honestly have no idea whether you agree with AiG about rejecting any and all data that conflicts with the Bible? Do you realize how that alone indicates a level of bias on this issue? A truly scientific approach is to evaluate data on its own merits; whether that data conflicts with the Bible or not is 100% irrelevant.

Answeing "I don't know" is all I can say here. It is not biased to admit that one doesn't really have an answer to a question, if I knew 100% I'd say so, but I don't.

There is no continuity, only claims that the fossil record is evidence of evolution. I've looked at these claims for decades and I do not see the evidence, I have no reason whatsoever for example to believe that Anomalocaris or Trilobites actually had ancestors, or common ancestry.

Anomalocaris had a complicated compound eye, as complicated as any organism that lives today and there is no fossil evidence whatsoever that the structure "evolved". This is just one of many claims made by evolution advocates.

Well to be honest, given the above your opinions on those issues aren't really of consequence. You're free to have and express them of course, but I wouldn't expect very many people to take them seriously.

If you'd like to learn more about the magnitude of this glaring problem with the fossil record I'd encourage to read Darwin's Doubt by Stephen Meyer, that has a wealth of scientific detail and scholarship that you can scrutinize.



I am of the view the fossil record is evidence of discontinuity not continuity, the abrupt appearance in the fossil record of fully formed, already "evolved" organisms with mineralized shells, compound eyes, brains, limbs etc actually typifies the fossil record, it is not the exception. The fossil record looks exactly as one would expect it to look if these animals had not evolved, this is the point so many are missing or even unaware of.

I've read the book. Tell me, why do you think Meyer put his arguments in a book, rather than a manuscript submitted to a paleontology journal, or in an abstract as part of a presentation at a paleontology conference?

For the same reasons Richard Dawkins put his arguments in a book I suspect, to bring ideas to the attention of the public.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #259]

Well if one could show that there are things in nature that really were designed, then by implication we know that there is or was a designer.

Underline mine, and that is the crucial step. Something looking as if it were designed falls well short of showing that it was designed. We have countless examples of things designed by animals including humans, but in those cases we can identify the designer.

Now how do you think we can tell if some "thing" was or was not designed? how can you tell? what exactly is the test for this? if there is no test then you cannot say something was not designed can you?

The test is to identify a potential designer and determine whether or not the thing is within the design capabilities of that designer. Just looking at something that appears to have been designed only allows you to contemplate that there was a designer involved, but it does not settle the issue of whether there was or not. For that you need more information, specifically the identity of a potential designer that you can then further investigate. Creationists, for example, simply propose a god being of some sort and assign the work to this entity, having the luxury of defining the qualities and capabilities of the god to be anything that suits them, including the ability to design or create virtually anything at all.

The Catholic authorities were wrong in that they tried to impose their interpretation on Galileo just as evolution advocates try to impose their interpretation on things, for example the fossil record, this is routinely interpreted by them as evidence for evolution when a better correlation is found when we interpret it a record of a discontinuous process of some kind.

Do you think punctuated equilibrium is not under the umbrella of evolution? Do you not believe that the fossil record of the genus Homo is convincing evidence that Homo sapiens evolved from earlier members of the genus in a very bushy evolutionary tree?

How did you establish that there are no people in the relevant fields of study who are skeptical of evolution? please tell me on what basis you assert that?

I never asserted any such thing. I said "But again the "problem observations" that you constantly reference are evidently not problems to those in the field who study these things and evaluate their validity." If evolutionary scientists challenge evolution via the proper scientific channels (peer-reviewed journals, conferences), and they have a good case to make, their challenges would be investigated to determine whether or not they are valid. If they were, we'd have everyone in the field discussing and debating the fantastic new information and what it means, because this information would have been disseminated for everyone to examine and throw darts at.

There's no real need to objectively consider what they say, why would we? after all we know X is a fact already so the one questioning X must, absolutely, without any doubt be wrong.

I have to make another flat earth comment here (as others have also done). How is your objection to evolution any different from a flat earther arguing that the "globetards" are pulling a hoax on humanity? We know, with 100% certainty that the Earth is an oblate spheroid (this is indeed a fact) and we know how it rotates, moves around the sun, etc. in great detail. Should flat earth proponents be listened to or ignored and laughed at?

Not if evolution were referred to as a fact, and taught to be a fact, in such a situation no fame awaits, no medals await, only isolation, attack and damage to one's career for being stupid enough to publicly question a fact.

Not if they can do what you said in the first quote of this reply ... show that their challenges have merit.

The "theory" of evolution has been elevated to the status of a dogma, a doctrine, not to be questioned, that is not science, no other area or theory in the sciences is afforded the same special status.

It is challenged routinely, but survives because it has yet to be shown to be wrong.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #263]

There is no "scientific community"

Of course there is. It is the collective group of people all around the world at universities, research institutions of various types, etc. who publish results in peer-reviewed scientific journals and present at conferences. The very fact that this is such a large and diversified group of people is why valid new ideas and results percolate to the top of the scientific consensus while bogus or questionable results either get discarded or require more work to validate before becoming accepted. There are just too many different people and organizations (and governments and cultures) involved to herd all of them into believing something that was demonstrably wrong for any length of time.

Papers do get retracted from time to time, or shown to be wrong, but something that has lasted as long as evolution is highly unlikely to have escaped the constant process of scrutiny by the scientific community. It is certainly not one entity or organization, which is exactly why it is not likely to be fooled in the long run.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #263]

There is no "scientific community"

Of course there is. It is the collective group of people all around the world at universities, research institutions of various types, etc. who publish results in peer-reviewed scientific journals and present at conferences. The very fact that this is such a large and diversified group of people is why valid new ideas and results percolate to the top of the scientific consensus while bogus or questionable results either get discarded or require more work to validate before becoming accepted. There are just too many different people and organizations (and governments and cultures) involved to herd all of them into believing something that was demonstrably wrong for any length of time.

That is "a" scientific community Dr, not "the" scientific community, there are a multitude of such "communities" and they each have their own strengths. weaknesses, foibles and biases. A Paper rejected by one might very well get accepted by another.

Papers do get retracted from time to time, or shown to be wrong, but something that has lasted as long as evolution is highly unlikely to have escaped the constant process of scrutiny by the scientific community. It is certainly not one entity or organization, which is exactly why it is not likely to be fooled in the long run.

I see you said "unlikely". How can you say that when you have also said that evolution is a "fact"? are you now saying it might not really be a fact at all?

[JoeyKnothead]

Edit cause edits...

...
I see, well some if not most of those are a tad controversial but where there's a controversy there's often a nugget of knowledge waiting to be found.

But it's interesting to contrast with another list, perhaps one you've never really thought about:
The universe magically sprang into existence all by itself.

Says that bunch who declare God magically did him do.

The laws of physics just happened to spring into existence with a wealth of potential.

God just happened to spring into existence, with him a great big bunch of potential.

The laws of physics just randomly have the ability to form a cosmos with galaxies etc.

A god I can't show exists just has him, randomly, the ability to form a cosmos with galaxies.

The many constants that we find in the laws of physics were just right to allow the universe to evolve.

The many constants we find in the laws of physics indicates there's a god for every puddle.

The universe appears to embody laws that can be expressed mathematically with a precision and profundity that's mind boggling.

"Appears"

This kind of gooficity is absolutely hilarious coming from one who seeks to declare he's the guy from the books.

Of fiction. Ya know, like the bible.

Life (astonishingly intricate biomechanical factories that can create other factories) - is just one of the consequences of the laws that just magically appeared billions of years ago.

Life (astonishingly intricate biomechanical factories that can create other factories) - is just one of the consequences of the laws that just magically appeared billions of years ago.

Cause a god I can't show exists to have him any hand in it.

Information that's necessary to construct human beings with all that they can do, was incredibly encoded into the laws of physics at the time they popped into existence.
None of the above needs any sort of explanation, it "just is".

Or, "It's just God."

Your obvious, and astounding inability to show any semblance of knowledge regarding evolutionary theory should lead us all to confusion on whether or not we need to think your ideas on it're either just danged right ignorant, or proudful for the being it.

[Jose Fly]

I don't thinks that's an honest definition of a scientist at all, so here's one for you:

A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.

If a person does that then they are - like it or not - a scientist, your claim that that ethic is inconsistent with a simulatneous reverence for scripture is just an opinion. The vast majority of contributors to the scientific revolution, the enlightemnent were Christians, they also held to a set of beliefs, they too regarded scripture as a source of authority. They are the reason we have radio, antibiotics, aircraft, lazers, light bulbs, television, cars etc etc etc - these people were scientists and their adherence to a set of beliefs about God were completely irrelevant.

If you truly think that someone working under the framework of "I will automatically reject any and all data that conflicts with my religious beliefs" is doing science as a scientist, I don't know what else to say. Maybe you should go talk to some scientists in real life and ask them what they think of that framework?

How can a student get a good idea of how science works if all you do is teach them how you think it should work? If I were a geography teacher I likely would set aside a lesson or two on the flat earth hypothsis. Just because a hypothesis or theory might no longer be prevalent is no reason to pretend it never was prevalent. The flat earth hypothsis was a very reasonable hypothesis given the knowledge and data available at the time. It is a perfectly sound scientific hypothesis within the context and date of the day.

At this point I have to wonder if you even understand how science curricula are set. In the US, states convene panels of scientists and science teachers and they develop proposed standards/curricula and recommend textbooks. Then (usually) state school boards vote to (or not to) adopt those standards/curricula and use the textbooks.

So what gets taught is not my idea of how science works. Rather, it's the collective view of the scientists and science educators that gets taught. And to be clear, I'd be fine with teaching about the history of flat-earthism or young-earth creationism, followed by explanations of how those things turned out to be wrong and why scientists rejected them. But I wouldn't spend more than about a day on them either.

So its all a matter of which authority one chooses from among the many available, the many journals available?

I don't know how that relates to what I said.

I am a member of the general public and I do not see it that way at all. I do not rely solely on some autjhority when evaluating a claim, instead, I rely on my education to guide me.

Well, maybe you're the type of person who never takes anyone's word for anything on any subject ever, and you are constantly researching every aspect of everything in your life. But I hope you understand how unusual that is.

Of course, this is an important point, a very important point. I think we should place more emphasis on the history of science, we should teach older models and theories so that students can see how a once apparently valid model can later turn out to be wrong. We should encourage vigilance so that they too can or might encounter such a situation in their own work. That should be part of scienced education. If something truly is groundless, without merit then let it stand or fall, let the student develop the skills needed to reach that decision on their own.

Well we'll just have to disagree on that. I think science education should be more than telling students "Here's the data, you figure out how to analyze and interpret it". Like I said, the purpose of science classes in K-12 is to teach them how science works and the current state of the science. If they don't get one or either of those, they haven't really received an "education in science".

What is wrong with suggesting that "scientific conclusions that have been agreed to for well over a century" can or should be questioned? what if such an established conclusion was in fact wrong despite being accepted for several centuries?

What is wrong with teaching that there are some people who think the "holocaust" did not happen? Teaching that there is or was such a view, albeit a minority, is not the same as teaching that view.

Because if you have students graduate thinking that maybe the earth is flat, the holocaust didn't happen, and evolution never occurs, then we've done a terrible disservice our kids.

Firstly, there is no such body as the "scientific community".

There is no such official body, but there most certainly is a scientific community, especially in regards to specific fields.

Secondly, delegating the decision as to what is or is not scienticially plausible to some etehreal authority is not part of the scientific method. If one did make a discovery that undermines some existing orthodoxy then how does seeking the approval of that orthoodxy help? the very fact you are questioing something that we know the orthodoxy - by definition - will not question, is clearly a fruitless endeavor.

For example if the people comprising this orthodoxy, this officialdom, have all been taught "evolution is fact" and you have evidence that it might not actually be a fact then how do you think that othodoxy will respond? I suspect they will respond differently to a group that were not taught "evolution is a fact".

No doubt that if you're going to overturn a theory that's been widely accepted and has produced real-world results, it's going to be hard. You're going to be met with a high degree of skepticism, everything you show is going to be highly scrutinized and critiqued, and there will be many difficult hurdles to overcome. It may take an entire lifetime of work and arguing before you see any progress, and it's even possible your idea might not get accepted in your lifetime.

But that's the way it should be. It should be difficult to overturn long-standing, well-established scientific theories.

This is why teaching such a lie - as is done today, routinely - is so dangerous, it undermines science.

What specific lie are you referring to?

There is no "scientific community".

Yes there is. Since we're talking about evolutionary biology, there is indeed a community of scientists focusing on it. https://www.evolutionsociety.org/

Some people have done that I agree, but it is some, just as some police officers rape, some doctors kill and so on. Do we conclude that all doctors, all police are a threat? No we do not.

It's probably a moot point now, since there's no real concerted effort to get creationism taught in science classrooms. The last was with ID creationism, but that died a very quick death after the Dover trial.

Answeing "I don't know" is all I can say here. It is not biased to admit that one doesn't really have an answer to a question, if I knew 100% I'd say so, but I don't.

I'm saying the fact that you don't even know if you agree with AiG's requirement that all their employees automatically reject any and all data that conflicts with the Bible is in itself an indication of your bias on the issue. Do you not understand why?

For the same reasons Richard Dawkins put his arguments in a book I suspect, to bring ideas to the attention of the public.

But everything Dawkins wrote about was already covered in the scientific literature. OTOH, the same isn't true of Meyer's book. What specifically do you think the purpose of Meyer's book is? Why is he trying to bring his arguments to the public before he's presented them to the relevant scientists?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #266]

That is "a" scientific community Dr, not "the" scientific community, there are a multitude of such "communities" and they each have their own strengths. weaknesses, foibles and biases. A Paper rejected by one might very well get accepted by another.

I'm referring to "the multitude of such communities" as "the" scientific community. Of course there are subgroups representing the main scientific disciplines (math, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc. etc.) and subgroups within subgroups. But for my own comments I'm referring to what you call the "multitude."

I see you said "unlikely". How can you say that when you have also said that evolution is a "fact"? are you now saying it might not really be a fact at all?

I don't think you can find a single post of mine where I stated that evolution is a "fact." I happen to believe that it is, but I think you're confusing posts. In any case, if someone can demonstrate that evolution is wrong to the satisfaction of the global scientific community, then they would win the battle in the end and the theory of evolution would be toast. I'm not shorting evolution though.

[brunumb]

How can a student get a good idea of how science works if all you do is teach them how you think it should work?

In science we teach students how to think, not what to think. We also teach them our current understanding of how the universe works. It is impossible to expect them to derive everything for themselves from scratch. So, there are things we teach as established 'facts' with the understanding that everything in science is provisional. New knowledge and discoveries may add further support to our theories or cause us to revise or even discard them. The problem with creationism is that it offers nothing in support of its hypothesis that would give it entry into the science class. It is a religious idea and nothing more. Religious teaching may cause students to question what they are being taught in science, but that should not be a reason to summarily dismiss what is taught or allow religion to sneak in through the back door.

If I were a geography teacher I likely would set aside a lesson or two on the flat earth hypothsis. Just because a hypothesis or theory might no longer be prevalent is no reason to pretend it never was prevalent. The flat earth hypothsis was a very reasonable hypothesis given the knowledge and data available at the time. It is a perfectly sound scientific hypothesis within the context and date of the day.

Then you would simply be wasting time, and it's not about pretending that any of those hypotheses were never prevalent. What value can be gained from actually teaching discredited or even false concepts when there is little enough time available for teaching our current understanding of the world and providing a framework for moving forward?

[brunumb]

What is wrong with teaching that there are some people who think the "holocaust" did not happen? Teaching that there is or was such a view, albeit a minority, is not the same as teaching that view.

You don't have to teach someone that "there are some people who think the "holocaust" did not happen". You just let them know. Students are free to question and even investigate further if that is their interest. But teaching the view is another matter. Is it useful to spend time actually teaching students that the holocaust did not happen? Is it a credible theory? Bulging curricula require us to make cost-benefit judgements all the time.

What is wrong with teaching creationism in science class is the real issue under discussion. The simple answer is that it is not science. It is religion. Christians constantly say that we can't use science to demonstrate the existence of God. Surely we can't then use science to demonstrate that God created everything either. If the empirical evidence exists for the creation hypothesis, then that's another matter.

[alexxcJRO]

There is no continuity, only claims that the fossil record is evidence of evolution.

The big or small discontinuity are only in the findings. It does not follow that this the reality.
Fossils are found as times goes by and discontinuities get smaller(ex: Kylinxia).
Positing a forever discontinuity argument and a forever moving the goal post argument is rather fallacious indeed.

I have no reason whatsoever for example to believe that Anomalocaris or Trilobites actually had ancestors, or common ancestry.

Anomalocaris had a complicated compound eye, as complicated as any organism that lives today and there is no fossil evidence whatsoever that the structure "evolved". This is just one of many claims made by evolution advocates.

Trilobites had complicated eyes too.

“Trilobites are one of the first animals in the fossil record to develop complex eyes (as opposed to the light-sensitive spots that passed as early eyes).
Trilobites had compound eyes, akin to those of today's insects and crustaceans. We know that because trilobites' lenses were made of calcite, so they often fossilized along with the rest of the trilobite's exoskeleton.
But underneath the lenses were sensory cells, which wired vision up to the brain. Those sensory cells, like other soft tissue, rarely fossilize. Thus, seeing how trilobites' eyes were wired into their brains has been impossible up to now.
The findings indicate that trilobites had apposition eyes. Apposition eyes are the most common form of eye, and are likely the ancestral form of the compound eye. Many of today's insects have both appositional eyes (more advanced, compound eyes) and ocelli (simple eyes that mainly sense light). But some arthropods, like spiders, make their entire eye out of ocelli.”
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet ... -of-vision
https://www.livescience.com/trilobite-eyes





Evolution of the eye: