College to House Students on Cruise Ship During Mold Cleanup

lkaplan

I was a community college student and I found the best way for me to stay connected was to be active in the college. I worked in Student Services and planned events for students on campus. I think also depends on the community college you go to and if they’re willing to make the effort to let students be involved. Just because you’re community college, dosen’t mean students don’t want a connection.

22108469

From a different perspective, one professor I know considers it a sort of “duty” to introduce new college students to the concept of the “real world,” i.e., the “indifferent world.” This professor teaches, in addition to the curriculum, concepts like “the world won’t care why you didn’t get this done, only that you didn’t.” He’s run into former students who, a decade later, have thanked him for introducing them to reality rather than spoonfeeding them another educational meal consisting of great sticky gobs of “self-esteem.”

carissamay

Interesting ideas. But I don’t think walking a student through the university website is really about building self-esteem. I think the idea is to give them the tools to help themselves, in a non-scary way. At a new job people are usually trained by someone for the same reasons. I don’t see anything wrong with helping new students, especially immigrants or first generation students, adjust to college.
thestudentsuccessblog.com

ssaulvolk

Really good points; I would just add that there’s no reason why the same doesn’t apply to 4-year colleges. It’s not hard to find students who could use that extra welcoming help.

goodeyes

As a parent, you should know the K-12 education of your children. This author needs to be more engaged in the education of her child. I find this sad.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Eliana-Osborn/572634960 Eliana Osborn

That’s my point–we are just starting the k-12 world and I am looking forward to being part of it, recognizing that I need to learn a lot.

tiredofgarbage

Glad you’re finally getting involved in your child’s “little people” education.
But……
What have you been doing for the last 5 years? Have you taught this child to walk? talk? use the bathroom? go to bed? get up? feed themself? put their clothes away? hang up their coat? pour water? Propertly eat in a restaurant? Going to Sunday School?

Presumably so.

That’s the problem with K-12 eduction today. The parents should always be the first and best teacher, formal school is just a support. If you don’t know how to teach reading/math – from naturally interacting with your child and reading, talking, and doing coloring/workbooks with them – then you haven’t been doing your job in the first place.

While the idea of your baby growing up may be scary – to you – it certainly shouldn’t be to your child. Especially if you are an educator. He should already have an understanding of his role and expectations, and be familiar with the concept of “school” and “work.” You know you’ve done your job properly when they walk (run) into the building without a backwards look or tear.

activelylearningtolearn

Great post! High-school students leave a very top-down structure for, especially in the university system, its inverse. Not only are students responsible for their own learning, but when it comes to the bureaucracy itself, students can’t expect faculty or most administrators to know — let alone inform them — of the various resources available to them, including the policies that can help them overcome bad grades that hurt their GPA’s. I don’t know about community colleges, but most universities now offer orientation courses, learning communities that enable students to share the learning process, enhanced advising programs, academic alert systems, and remediation study-skills courses. Still, many students have problems processing the nebulous cloud of even what they have to do, until it’s too late. In my freshman composition courses, I try to outline available resources, grade-replacement policies, and study-skills strategies as much as possible in class. Although I don’t have evidence that what I do helps, I imagine that the more students encounter that information, the more opportunities they’ll have to process it.

missoularedhead

I do some handholding, in the sense that I show them how to use the library website to find scholarly articles, talk about the differences (and subtle ones, at that) between primary and secondary sources, give them a lesson in how to read for college, and discuss deadlines. And I stress that in college, effort doesn’t count for much — only the end result matters.

big_giant_head

I have found that my first-semester students don’t know what Final Exam Week is at all. They don’t understand that classes have ended. Every semester, at least one person from each section will be shocked that (for instance), if our Final is on Monday, they don’t actually have to come to class on Wednesday. Even though our college posts the Final Exam schedule in an area of the web portal called “Student Quick Clicks” no later than mid-August of a fall semester, these students have no idea that such a thing (not just the schedule, but Student Quick Clicks) exists. When I show them the schedule, I also show them how to read it; a significant minority always has trouble making sense of the thing.

I spend some time with every group explaining to them “how to do college,” because they just don’t know. Most of them did not have parents or older siblings who went to college, after all.

There are always some who think our classroom is also my office.

There are always some who can’t or won’t read a building map to find out where my actual office is, so I take them there on a “field trip” at the beginning of the semester.

There are many who don’t know that they can appeal an unfair grade or complain about ineffective faculty, and I tell them not only how to do these things, but that they must do these things if a situation really is unfair (and that they must not if it isn’t–narcissistic whining never made made friends or influenced anyone in a good way).

I remind them to keep a file of their work, both on a flash drive and on a secure hard drive someplace other than the athletic training room (I’m not kidding about that; I’ve seen it happen). I explain that this is a CYA policy: you can’t appeal an unfair grade if you can’t prove it was unfair. And as we all know, sometimes even conscientious faculty like me can lose student assignments. If they have a copy saved, everyone can leave the room smiling.

I show them the way I how I organize my email and document folders, so they can see why I never lose a student email or an assignment I created 8 years ago–and why I can gain access to these things in less than 30 seconds without fail.

And…no. No professor ever did any of these things when I was a 25-year-old freshman, nor would I have expected them to. But this is a different generation. They’re mostly good people, but a whole huge chunk of them has never been taught how to do things on their own, and without a significant amount of initial hand-holding, a great many of them would just disappear–not because they don’t belong in college, but because it is an unfamiliar culture.

We do, by the way, have a sort of orientation program, but the students universally despise it. I’m not sure why. I know it tries to impart some good information, but I think the students are so resistant to it that they consider it all useless, until the time comes that they need to know something, and then…well, it’s nice to have an Instructor who doesn’t treat them like morons when they don’t know how to do or find something.

catemanhattan

I love the I’m-so-on-top-of-this comments by people who probably haven’t seen their children yet or since whenever. Those comments are driven by mood and defense, more than meaning. :-)

Little people education – great term. From the bits I’ve been observing, the ‘new k-4 ed’ is sophisticated confusions. Have you read Leontine Young’s (1960′s) Life Among the Giants? Young probably still knows how the new little people respond. She advocated that adults try to remember how childhood was at 3 feet tall. From her perspective, it is less important what early education expects you to do and more important to interpret the foreign machinations with your child.

catemanhattan

You’ve misread.

jrscholar

Well that’s one way to get them to stop complaining about how small their dorm rooms are. Bound to appear palatial in comparison to a cabin on a ship.

nacrandell

In a contest of certainty (religion) vs. uncertainty (evolution), certainty will always win.

We went into Iraq because there were weapons of mass destruction – whoops, but we were told it was a certainty and therefore we believed it.

As to the story idea – the general population, including holders of university degrees, have the intelligence of horses and will follow any accepted and popular idea. Sad but true.

tejackso

i’d say mcadams and coyne and gottschall are all right.

there’s at least interesting (if not entirely conclusive) cognitive psychological and cognitive anthropological evidence that belief in supernatural entities is also a function of our basic evolved cognitive architecture, same as story. in other words you can make a good case that religious kinds of belief (beliefs in the supernatural) are the default human mode. you have to be taught or learn to be otherwise.

if evolution is a story, it’s a postmodern one, which is to say it violates the most common everyday notions of good story.

and evolutionary theory takes on all its weight because it tries to explain (tell the story of) how life can exist without having a supernatural cause. as far as i can tell, this automatically means what will seem to be cause by sheer chance to someone who for whatever reason or in whatever way believes in supernatural entities. if we’re one way or the other predisposed for supernatural belief, then this cannot be comforting, and will certainly, understandably be resisted. Given these ideas, it’s wrong to see disbelief in evolution as stupid or crazy or mindless or whatever, even if it is contrary to what we usually think of as facts.

i can’t quite agree with zagros. if someone wants to posit a supernatural power that started evolution, that’s a choice to make, but it has nothing to do with scientific explanation.

tony e. jackson

simpsonr

I believe the significant shortcoming in the minds of opponents of evolution is that there is no explanation of the starting point. Natural selection works beautifully once a reproducing organism comes into existence, but makes no statement at all (appropriately so) about how that organism came to be in the first place. Religion explains the beginning; evolution does not.

puretoo

Poppycock. Does gravity require a narrative? Do magnets require character development? Do people inquire about agency and plot development before taking medicine? The need for myths and legends may be powerful – but if it excludes the acceptance of science, it’s the culprit not the solution.

hiker1994

Nice try, but I don’t think the failure of evolution to “catch on” with the general population is because it doesn’t make a good story. Rather, it’s because it is implausible, IMHO. There are so many examples of built-in intelligence in the natural world around us, that to think those instances just developed out of nothingness is a stretch. It is certainly no better than believing in a God who came out of nothingness, or who always existed. If radio dishes pointed to outer space picked up signals that had distinguishable patterns to them, we would conclude that distant intelligent life had sent them. Yet many apparently insist NOT to attribute the patterns all around us to intelligence.

(Not to mention the chicken and egg problem of where DNA came from…)

Signed,
Intelligent Design advocate

leftwing_conspirator

I seem to remember that when Darwin’s theory was published, the papal reaction was that a simple, automatic process that was so elegant as to create the diversity of species that we now experience, is further proof of “the greater glory of God”.

To put it in a more modern context, which God is more impressive: The one who walks from Boston to LA and puts a baseball into a wastebasket, or one who knocks a home run out of Fenway Park so hard that the ball lands in the same wastebasket in L.A.? (notice I didn’t say whether God was playing for the Sox or the Yankees, I’m sure baseball fans have even more controversial thoughts on that subject)

22067030

McAdams has forgotten one important point: it depends on how the story is told. If you decide to tell the story of Natural Selection and its magic wand, then of course it’s a lousy story. But Natural Selection is not the protagonist in this epic, perhaps not even God (with apologies to Teilhard de Chardin); as Louis Leakey fans will tell you, the protagonists are our ancestors.

Like Leakey, we want to know who we are and where we came from, and that is a great story. And yes, there is sex and violence (just check Darwin’s last book), and even though we know how it turns out, there is suspense (how will our ancestors survive Anomalocaris in the Cambrian sea, how will they learn to navigate the Jurassic forest at night – and what do retain of those lessons?, and how did monkeys arrive in South America?).

Perhaps we just need better story-tellers…

GLMcColm

http://crystalmatrix.us/ Major_Ray

The truth of creationism will be accepted more and more when Christian scientists are not afraid to admit that the Genesis creation can explain science, but science alone (as it is now defined) cannot explain Genesis. I suggest that believer-scientists establish an hypothesis based on Genesis and test it using the scientific method. The idea that “man” can obtain wisdom ( not to be confused with knowledge) without spiritual discernment” is laughable. The bible says that “a fool has said in his heart that there is no God”. I rather believe God than a fool. Demonizing Christians and grouping all believers under “religion” is one way to take the focus away from Genesis as recorded in the Hebrew manuscripts.

schultzjc

Storytelling is a conscious choice when selecting a means of getting a message across. Most science can be communicated that way, including evolution. Biologist Sean Carroll is a recent advocate of this approach to explaining science, for all the reasons discussed here.

But the issue isn’t communicative choice, it’s the audience and its biases. The audience abhors uncertainty, processes that exceed a human lifetime, and anything that appears to reduce its self-importance. Very few, if any, storytellers have succeeded in overcoming these audience shortcomings when trying to explain anything. As long as the audience can’t think beyond its narrow self-definition, some realities will never gain much traction. Coyne is correct in pointing out that religion maintains these weaknesses (by offering a self-satsifying story).

It’s interesting to note that humans are really talented at creating compelling stories, having invented one to describe nature that denies uncertainty, keeps the timeline short, credits themselves (= Mr. God) and makes themselves the most important part of everything.

LeeBowman

It is ‘unguided’ based on its initial prediction, rather than an evidentiary basis. So [integrat[ing] God into it] is simply making a further prediction. A more cogent prediction, based on the data, is simply intervention at key points to produce novelty and complexity.

“You don’t have to give up belief in God to believe evolution, but if
you’re going to accept the scientific version of it, you do have to give
up the idea that God micromanaged the process.”

Only if you insist upon holding to the unproven [no empirical verification] scientific version of totally unguided processes. This is speculative, and has NOT been verified.

But returning to your assertion that “You don’t have to give up belief in God to believe evolution”, then why is it unscientific to make the prediction of intervention in the evolutionary process? It plainly is not.

cwilli

Believe in which god, and why? Allah? Zeus? etc. If it’s “just a matter of faith,” then faith in god X is as good as faith in god Y, or in a council of gods. Resorting to faith leads to religious relativism.

rtazen

See, this is why we cannot have nice things. While I am a firm believer in evolution, I feel that your type of response is the reason we cannot have any sort of dialogue. In order to strengthen your argument you insult your opposition. This demeans your position and your own intelligence.

http://crystalmatrix.us/ Major_Ray

I referred to the Genesis creation from the Hebrew bible.
The only God mentioned is YHVH or HaShem, who has many names. I only speak for
this one God since I have never met nor do I have any responsibility to promote or apologize
for any other gods. Such a concern would be a social issue, not a spiritual or scientific position. I believe in science and in the Hebrew God. In my mind, there is no conflict.

tcarney57

I love guys like Coyne. If you don’t interpret evidence as he does, that means you haven’t done your homework. His “I’ve never heard of this before” comment is particularly ironic in this instance since almost no one had heard of natural selection either before Darwin published his findings.

tmccool

“Jerry Coyne … doesn’t put much stock in McAdams’s idea, adding that it’s one he’s never heard anyone else venture.” So if Charles Darwin had published On The Origin Of Species today, Jerry Coyne would reject it because “he’s never heard anyone else venture.”

tmccool

Amazing how people who claim not to be Christians still take the Bible literally like any fundamentalist Christian would. I would think that someone with your intelligence would recognize that the second creation story is an allegory.

tmccool

Oh, there is a lot of things that happen in the Bible that are “unguided.” Free will is a common theme.

mathmaven

Connecting well at an emotional level is not the role of science.

schultzjc

That’s a fine attitude unless you want someone (like the public) to support science. It’s almost all that works.

LeeBowman

“You can try to make some of these scientific theories into stories, but
it is not easy to do, and science does not depend on your doing it.”

To tell it as a ‘story’, you’d have to have personally witnessed the events. Otherwise, it’s conjecture [speculatively fill in the details, a storytelling perspective]. So no, evolution will never by told as a ‘story’ within science, but without? Perhaps.

Creation epochs are told as stories; why not add an evolutionary perspective? Biblical accounts do not venture there, but in today’s era, it has become a requirement. We live in an age where science dictates its version of reality, and rightly so, since science has tools for analyzing and discerning physicality. But where its analytic discernment ends, is where reason, logic and yes, revelatory depictions may enter in.

While Biblical narratives are strewn with inconsistencies with known physical laws, their underlying truths may well have validity. A created sphere? It fits with the other source of reasoned epistemology; logic and reason. And while ‘logic and reason’ are claimed to be the engines of atheistic thought, that is a fallacy. In reality, ‘atheism’ is a ‘deterministic’ position, based primarily upon degenerating Biblical writings [quite easy], based on their known flaws, and a joining into the materialistic camp [hey, they'll buy you a beer].

In short; there is NO empirically based evidence of earth as an ‘isolated sphere’, and having formed by random physical events.

The evidence [current and past data] is plainly of a designed realm, although done incrementally, and with evolutionary processes [simply an adaptive component of embryogenesis], an adaptive function to aid in coping with environmental variables.

Creation is a reality, but not in conformance with most [if not all] scriptural narratives. The siding with atheism based on skewed Biblical narratives is simply following a road to delusion, based simply on bronze-age dissolutionment.

A better path to take; one’s sense of true reason.

jwaage

Evolution is a long and beautiful story. It predates humans by millions of years, so why would it have a human or human-like protagonist. Genesis does not have a human protagonist. If you need a protagonist, try natural selection in all of its various forms and stir in physics and chemistry. Just because the character of evolution is complex does that mean it can’t be one? It’s motivation and purpose are life despite a hostile, ever changing environment. It’s not a conscious motivation or purpose, but then the story has only recently evolved consciousness, motivation and purpose.

The first substantial telling of the story. in 1859, ends with what many consider an invitation to continue to elaborate on and celebrate the story: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” You are welcome to speculate or believe in who or what did the breathing – Darwin latter added, “the Creator”. It does not change the story,nor replace it with the other ones.The other story evolution is being compared with above, the one in Genesis, seems rather biologically convoluted and contradictory in comparison – a clone, Eve, who was clearly not a clone since she lacked genes that Adam had and had genes that Adam didn’t, their children killed and married each other and did so for hundreds of years before God, through Moses, decided that there was too much inbreeding going on … But that is only one story and there are many others in many religions – which is the right story? If we need to have a story to answer all our questions about who we are and where we came from, doesn’t it seem the 1859 version and its subsequent chapters is better suited to provide answers for ALL humans and not just a relative handful who follow the Biblical version?

The problem is not that evolution isn’t a story. The problem is that a small minority have prevented too many to learn how to read the story. People in the rest of the world seem to be able to read and understand it. Maybe out kids should be taught to read rather than to be ignorant.

jwaage

When Genesis can explain how a male’s rib can become a woman, and get the biology and chemistry right, I’ll pay more attention to the Bible as both a story and a replacement for science.

rod2312

I don’t know if it’s about a story per se. What I do know is that when the sciences so bent on maintaining rigor in their approaches use an evolutionary scale in images that is actually completely inaccurate, it’s hard to come to their defense when they are battled by the anti-evolution people. What I mean is that the tail end of the evolutionary scale in all the textbooks that I have seen in this country is a white man. There is not only misrepresentation in the majority of what they label human (eg most living humans are women, not men and they are likely to have physical features not included on that page of the text) but also the variety of physical variations in humans is missing. So much for the science in sciences – perhaps they are storytellers also.

jwaage

“Religion explains the beginning; evolution does not.” Because evolution is not the theory for the beginning of life – it is a process that occurs once certain prerequisites are in place – like variation, reproduction and selection. But those pre-requisites were in place before there were even cells. Look to physics and chemistry for the science about the origin of molecules capable of the traits that allow evolution. Or look to religion for the beginning and evolution for the story that has no end from that beginning.

jwaage

Two points in response: 1) Textbook publishers are not scientists. Evolutionary biologists actually agree with you that having a white male (often a circumsized white male) as an example of humans is a distortion at the least. But so is the picture for every other sexually reproducing organism – you cannot represent two sexes with one picture, let alone all the phenotypic variation. 2) Evolutionary biologists do not put humans at the end of any scale – we are on one branch of a very gnarly, branching bush that is still growing.

Textbook publishers hav ebeen and are under extreme pressure from Creationists (now known ad Intelligent Design advocates) to dumb down or totally remove evolution from high school text books – the result is a very poor and oftn inaccurate telling of the story. For a better version, try Coyne’s website or books by scientists like Sean B. Carroll.

old nassau’67

Two observations:
1. Is there a survey showing what % of creationists understand Hebrew – or even Latin or Greek – vs. the % that depend upon one of the hundreds of translations? Or that even an “original” bible is a pastiche of at least four ancient and partial manuscripts, whose amalgamation depends upon the decisions of that bible’s editors?
2. People don’t believe in the Bible because it offers exciting narrative: It offers easily understood answers that show man triumphal and exalted. Ditto for the Koran, the Book of Mormon, The Vedas, The Bhagavad Gita, The Divine Principle…..

http://crystalmatrix.us/ Major_Ray

I cannot advertise on this site, but that is exactly what I have been researching. Search for the Genesis Molecule. I cannot add a link here. I think this is the first book that uses the bible and chemistry to explain the genesis of living creatures from the “dust of the earth”. I used the “Word of God” as my hypothesis and tested it with science. There is no disagreement with the science, just the interpretation. Interestingly, my biomatrixgenesis conjecture sound a lot like evolution. That is why science cannot prove God, but God can prove science.

LeeBowman

Unguided here refers to evolutionary (phylogenetic) progressions.

krishtalka

McAdams needs to read “Grand Theories and Everyday Beliefs: Science, Philosophy and their Histories, by Wallace Matson, and the review of the book by P. William Hughes in Science 335:798, 2012 (17 Feb). Evolution provides the classic clash between what Matson calls “high belief” (,i.e., myth, superstition, religion—convictions without evidence) and “low belief” (e.g., science—convictions with evidence “developed inductively through encounters and experience.”). Evolution is one such low belief, rejected by purveyors of high belief because it denies humans the arrogance of thinking they are at the center of life (or a “creation”), much as Galileo did for the notion of us (Earth) being at the center of the solar system.

Evolution might not be a “story” for McAdams, but neither is the Periodic Table of the Elements, the evolution of stars and galaxies, or the function of muons—so why are these low beliefs not actively denied by purveyors of high belief (actually they are by young Earth creationists who deny the 4.5 billion year age). Indeed, evolution of life is a terrific story, with protagonists (animals, plants, microbes), sex, murder, violence, environmental disasters, death and birth—all the makings of a Hollywood flick—and told, perhaps among the best, by Richard Dawkins in The Ancestor’s Tale.

5768

Scientists can most certainly embroider the narratives of their research just to make the latter more “appealing,” and they thereby flirt with research misconduct and its consequences.

That “Philosophy will clip an Angel’s wings” as stated by Keats isn’t anything new and nothing short of turning science into science fiction for perceived wider appeal in order that people will “feel” better “connected” with the cold hard facts will change that.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=536858279 Joel Crevier

Yes, but none of those parts of science in any way speak to who we are as humans. That’s what stories do. And its also what science is trying to do with evolutionary psychology, etc. Further evolution offers an answer to origins, which is certainly a prominent narrative thread cross-culturally. People are willing to accept other parts of science because they have no bearing on their current conception of themselves and their place in the world. Evolution is clearly different in that regard

jwebbwsu

Good grief, evolution is a bodice ripper compared to the Standard Model of physics!

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001314796473 Enézio Almeida Filho

You have not read this law: it says nothing about creationism! Shame on you!

11144703

Evolution is taught from the federal military colleges to every Roman Catholic college in the nation. In Epperson v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard the good guys won.

Not so bad.

Nevertheless, the fight against religious fundamentalism, whatever the religion, must continue to be fought.

tuxthepenguin

The problem is not with the lack of a story, it’s the people telling the story. Most high school teachers are, let’s be honest, not socially with it. High school students see someone with weird glasses and funny shoes standing in front of a class rambling on about how turtles evolved and how it leads to…sorry, fell asleep trying to write about it.

If you want to drive home the point of WHY students should care about it, talk about something like this:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/personalized-medicine-vs-evolution/
It is fascinating for anyone who has an interest in cancer. My guess is that a lot of people are interested in cancer. Certainly a lot more than are interested in the colors of turtle shells.

It’s impossible to deny the reality of evolution. The attacks on religion, debates about the origin of DNA, and all that jazz are just sideshows that distract from the relevant points. The childish attacks on religion do hurt the acceptance of evolution. Just look at some of the comments on this article. Would you trust someone like that to tell you about anything of a scientific nature?

hiker1994

Technically, creationism and intelligent design (ID) are completely different theories, since they come at the central questions from opposite starting points. Still, a given individual can believe in both theories, as well as certain parts of evolution, simultaneously. I am one of those individuals, just so you know where I’m coming from. After all, we all enter this dialogue with biases, so you might as well know mine. To claim that scientists avoid all bias is naive. I sometimes wonder if some scientists have ever really probed the central ideas of ID, or if it is all too easy to write it off, using a handy label (creationism), and slide it under the rug.

ID advocates are simply asking the scientific community to take an unbiased look at the facts, and not pre-judge (rule out) any particular direction the evidence may lead. I am not a biologist, but a number of noted biologists have looked at the evidence — and new facts that have become evident in the last 25 to 30 years — and have concluded that there is evidence of intelligence in the natural world’s design. One must first define what “intelligence” is, of course, but ID theory is not just a sham. It certainly has no more holes in it or missing links than evolutionary theory. The public seems to recognize that, which gets back to the original article.

labronx

Stop rationalizing, tmccool. Where in the Bible does God say “hey dude, don’t take this seriously. i just giving you an allegory.”

labronx

Oh I get it! Allegory! Why didn’t you say so?

But what could be the allegorical truth behind that talking snake? Umm… lemme guess… um… Don’t talk to snakes that have a lisp? Is that it? Did I get the points?

And the woman made from a spare rib… hmmm… hard one, that. AH HA! When dealing with women, use barbecue sauce? Is that it? Is it?

Oh these biblical allegories are so much fun, fer sure. Much more funner that evolution, fer sure.

Now a man who becomes his own father… geez… that’s tough, too. Um…. How about: If you love your father then you can have sex with your mom without popping out your eyes- Is that it?

Oh, these allegories slay me. Frankly, though, I can’t see any allegories in evolution. That seems to straightforward. Yes, a few theories to work out, validate, prove and disprove. But it all moves so directly. Not like sex with your mom, talking snakes with lisps and telepathy.

You slay me tmccool, you just slay me.

Oh Wait! I think there IS allegory in evolution. Bear with me now…. Small changes lead to big changes. Hmmm… Ok..how about this: If my son does not pick up that little lego piece on the floor, I will step on it in the morning, fall over and spill the box and then there will be legos everywhere! You’re right! There IS allegory in evolution!

parispundit

The problem is the mistake often made by confusing “why” and “how”. Science is about “how”. The word “why” does appear in questions like “why are there tides”?, but the answer is always in terms of “how” gravity works.

Religion is about why. Evolution says nothing, absolutely nothing, about “why” human beings exist and are the way they are. It has quite a bit to say about “how” they got that way.

Because Intelligent Design is about “why”, and is not necessary for telling the “how” story, it is religion, not science, and does not belong in the classroom.

There is a place for “why” stories – an important place. As the article notes, human beings need and crave them. But that place is not in science.

11144703

“Most high school teachers are, let’s be honest, not socially with it.”

Yeah, people like Scopes, Epperson, Aguillard–what did those utterly inept people know?

However, since Susan Epperson was a woman, does that make you a sexist?

starrett

Professors McAdams and Gottschall might want to catch up on work that’s already been done on evolution as narrative, particularly Misia Landau’s book ”Narratives of Human Evolution” (Yale University Press, 1993). It is precisely about how evolution does match “the universal grammar of storytelling.”

pcnsc

I’m still waiting on the “science” of evolution. The last I heard evolution was still a theory because it lacks the requisites for science. Of course, there is a movement since “global warming” fell victim to manipulation of facts, that science is more about the processes towards finding knowledge.

Bah, there is room for intelligent people to discuss the two theories, creationism and evolution, if we all can act like rational people and not like activists for chaos!

Zagros

And this is why “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins (and similar screeds by atheists who masquerade as scientists — not that they are not scientists by day but they certainly are not when the attack religion in the name of science) is not science either. The problem is when scientists insult religion by arguing that if God is unnecessary then He is also nonexistent (following from Occum’s Razor, which (a) ironically was devised by a priest and (b) is also not science but is rather philosophy). I would argue that from a scientific perspective humans are “unnecessary” for the universe to exist–does that mean that we do not exist?

I would further argue that while there are many clues to the believer that God exists, these clues cannot ever be taken so far as to constitute scientific proof. Indeed, one of the better expositions of this problem is from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy–God can never be proven by science. After all, once you can “prove” God exists, you destroy faith (which, by definition, must come from belief rather than evidence).

Similarly (and to be fair), I take exception to those who point to the Bible and state that dinosaurs and humans coexisted because “the Bible tells me so” (insert your own religious text if you follow a different religion). Once again, they confuse faith and proof.

I do not have faith that I will fall if I walk off a hundred story building, I have gravity. Unfortunately (and similarly) if I walk off a hundred story building and have faith that I will not fall, I’m not only stupid — but I’m dead. Thus, when we place faith before evidence to the contrary, we are doomed to fail.

Yet, destroying faith when there is a lack of evidence to the contrary (such as occurs 100% of the time when science sets out to “prove” the non-existance of God — remember you cannot prove a negative!) is pure idiocy as well. After all, it is our faith in our fellow human beings that allow us to build a society and establish the trusting linkages we need to survive. Going even further, destroying faith when that faith does no harm (think of what would happen had a certain letter from Virginia O’Hanlon to the editor of the New York Sun that circulates in December of each year turned out differently – or the widespread telling to children of the coming of the tooth fairy was squashed by adults who wanted kids to “grow up”) is cruel to the nth degree. The editors of the New York Sun knew that we should not do this and we as a society know that we must instill faith and wonder in our children, what harm is it if I indulge in what you consider a fantasy but which causes you no harm (and yet causes me much good)?

Finally, as to the question of whether Intelligent Design belongs in the classroom, I think that it does but just not in the science classroom. For far too long, we have failed our children by acting as though the “wall of separation between church and state” means that we cannot even discuss religion. We can and should discuss it even in our science class but do so without endorsing it as an “alternative” explanation. Instead, we should point out that the “how” is the science but the why is up to us. We can either choose to believe that the universe is guided by divine principle or that everything occurs through a spontaneous non-directed process. Science does not answer this question nor can it. Yet, if you take God out of the equation, belief in science will actually decrease among the population of the fervantly religious. It is better to give us something we can actually believe in than to try to destroy our system of faith.

Zagros

Why fight? Just figure out how to neutralize the bad parts and let religious people keep the good parts. The war is not between science and religion: it is between scientists and religious people who both overstep their own boundaries.

raymond_j_ritchie

Religion in the US is mixed up with a lot of things that it is not in most western countries. For example, when I was a post-doc in the US, americans could not understand that I was a hard-line atheist but a political conservative. For good reason, religious types have always been treated with deep suspicion in Australia. They are dismissed as creeps. I hope that never changes.
Tom Bartlett’s thesis is not new. Darwin talks about it on the last page of his Descent of Man. The author is right that the story of evolution is dull and does not hold a candle to the idea that man was made by a giant sky fairy in his own image. How can descent with modification and natural selection compare to thinking that you were made by a god even if it is self-dilusion? The idea that man has not got a divine origin and is as far as we know we are the only living things that are self aware enough to have been able to work out where we came from is deeply disturbing to some people. Add to that that the earth has no special position in the universe and it all fits together why so many irrationals refuse to accept man’s origins. It is the ego-crushing ordinariness of it all. As a professional biologist (58y) I still find it hard to get it around my mind that we have only known where we came from for 153 years. Two lifetimes.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Human-Ape/100001623230964 Human Ape

“Technically, creationism and intelligent design (ID) are completely different theories,”

Since when did your childish idiotic supernatural fantasies become scientific theories?

You also wrote “I am not a biologist”

That’s very obvious. You know nothing about any branch of science.

“but a number of noted biologists have looked at the evidence — and new
facts that have become evident in the last 25 to 30 years — and have
concluded that there is evidence of intelligence in the natural world’s
design.”

You’re a liar. You’re a stinking liar. Name one, just one, real biologist who doesn’t laugh at the idiotic religious fantasy called magical intelligent design creationism. Real scientists are not science deniers.

What evidence does magical intelligent design creationism have? You can’t even describe your fairy’s magic wand. Grow up.

Believe what you want. Nobody cares about your stupidity. But you got a lot of nerve to spread lies about science and scientists. You should apologize.

darwinkilledgod dot blogspot dot com

http://www.facebook.com/people/Inverhills-Sophia/100000309951627 Inverhills Sophia

the problem is evolution is only part of the story, the part “we use” to describe change over time. evolution is NOT a cosmological argument NOR does it offer any insight into why there is something rather than nothing; and least of all, evolution says NOTHING about right and wrong. in fact, if anything evolution says there is no right or wrong, and that is why it is half a story. not necessarily a bad story as the author of the piece suggests, but an incomplete story for sure.

electronicmuse

Nah! So-called “skeptics,” who could never truly live up to that description, “don’t buy it” because they think fossils are just God’s little jokes.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Human-Ape/100001623230964 Human Ape

“I sometimes wonder if some scientists have ever really probed the central ideas of ID,”

As if real biologists are going to spend one second of their time probing magic.

Stop calling your childish fantasies “design”. Call it what you really believe, magical creation out of nothing. Be a tard boy if you want, but at least be honest about what your mental illness really is. You believe in magic, and you’re so incredibly stupid you expect scientists to not point at you and laugh. Instead you expect them to probe magic. The insanity burns.

darwinkilledgod dot blogspot dot com

http://www.facebook.com/people/Human-Ape/100001623230964 Human Ape

“One must first define what “intelligence” is, of course, but ID theory
is not just a sham.”

Translation:

One must first define what MAGIC is, of course, but MAGIC theory
is not just a sham.

Your magic fantasy is a lot worse than a sham. It’s pure idiocy. Grow up.

“It certainly has no more holes in it or missing
links than evolutionary theory.”

Magic most certainly does have a major hole. It’s 100% pure bull*****.

Evolution is the strongest fact of science. It’s dishonest to say evolution has holes which is equivalent to saying reality has holes.

There will always be research opportunities in evolutionary biology, but scientists do not call these points for future understanding “holes”. Only science deniers like you use that word. Would you call our planet’s orbit around the sun a theory with holes? Hopefully even you are not that stupid. Evolution has more evidence than any other scientific fact so stop spreading lies about it.

darwinkilledgod dot blogspot dot com

corwinamber

There are good story tellers in science generally (the late Stephen Jay Gould comes to mind) so I do not think you can blame failure to accept evolution on it having a “lousy story.” One enjoyable approach is the book co-authored by two scientists and the novelist Terry Pratchett: “The Science of Discworld III: Darwin’s Watch” by Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen.

pjpdoyle

Science and theology are exclusive provinces. Science deals with logic and observation, theology deals with intuition and morals. Why do people keep wanting to mix the two. Early posts mentioned allegory. Allegory is a way to tell a story when there is a “mystery” that cannot be explained in words because it cannot be seen or comprehended. Questions such as “why is there universe?”. The dismissive statement “the the question should never be asked or is meaningless”, simply does not suffice. It is the “mysteries” of life that begs questions that drives increases in understanding and knowledge. Some may never be answered others will. A story is a way to give meaning and purpose to life’s questions, when the facts are uncovered, a new more imaginative or complex story is needed to answer the unanswered questions.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Human-Ape/100001623230964 Human Ape

“Jerry Coyne is one scientist who’s been trying. Coyne, an evolutionary biologist who writes the blog Why Evolution Is True, doesn’t put much stock in McAdams’s idea, adding that it’s one he’s never heard anyone else venture. In a forthcoming paper in the journal Evolution, Coyne explores why the resistance to evolution in the United States is “uniquely high among First World countries.” He looks at the data and convicts the No. 1 suspect: religion.”

Mr. Coyne is absolutely correct. Throw out the Christian death cult and acceptance of evolution becomes no problem. Christianity makes idiots even more stupid. It needs to be eradicated.

darwinkilledgod dot blogspot dot com

http://www.facebook.com/people/Inverhills-Sophia/100000309951627 Inverhills Sophia

how is this type of dogma any different than religious dogma?

http://www.facebook.com/people/Inverhills-Sophia/100000309951627 Inverhills Sophia

again, I don’t see how this strict either/or mentality works exactly? unless one is suggesting there is a “right way” to live, but then where does the theory of evolution support THAT claim exactly??

http://www.facebook.com/people/Human-Ape/100001623230964 Human Ape

If there is one right way to live, it most certainly isn’t Christianity or any other cult. To be religious is to be insane. There’s nothing right about being a crazy gullible idiot.

Evolution has the advantage of being the strongest fact of science. And evolutionary biology, more than any other branch of science, has made the magic god fairy, which always was a childish fantasy, completely unnecessary.

Type “darwin killed god” in the google search box then click the I’m Feeling Lucky button.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Inverhills-Sophia/100000309951627 Inverhills Sophia

darwin left room for god, according to his own argument. you should actually try reading darwin. nietzsche on the other hand showed why god was dead; but then he also saw that science could not fill the void, only replace it with a theory.

eelalien

Personally, I cannot wait until a species from some other part of the universe lands in the Bible Belt with their own creation myth and decide that they want no part of a heathen society to attempt to coexist with them. These backwards humans will then be enslaved and forced to dig for earthworms, which, of course, are non-existent on the other planet, and therefore a much sought-after resource.

Oh, and make the stupid hairless apes worship the one TRUE deity, as everyone on their planet knows…

http://www.facebook.com/people/Inverhills-Sophia/100000309951627 Inverhills Sophia

why wait, we already have that; it is called wage slavery. 1% down??

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=754065664 Cathy Hinga

There are also political forces at play. Evolution replaced the Great Chain of Being where kings and white men were on top just below the angels. Evolution is a threat to the status quo and promotes equality and that is a threat to the bottom line. I do not think that religion threatens evolution. It is greed that is the threat. A good read on evolution and the anti-slavery movement is Darwin’s Sacred Cause.

tmccool

It’s the Dawkins effect. He is responsible for this turning ugly.

drdwilliams

Interesting….

Evolution “the strongest fact of science?” Really?

Also interesting is your claim that evolutionary biology has killed god. Perhaps, but now it seems that quantum physicists seem to be reviving It (see Ahmit Goswami). When biologists start having to integrate quantum physics into the field, we’ll likely see more ideas like Rupert Sheldrake’s “morphological field theory” as explanations for evolution. At that point, Darwin is out and Lamarck may make a come back. That will be an interesting story in the history of science.

It will also be funny to watch the scuffle between physicists and biologists over whose science is really the hardest. Is quantum physics really the softer science, a mere fairy tale, when compared to biology? I’ve heard people in the science college disparage the social scientists as being too soft. I’ve listened to chemists and physicists making those claims against biologists, and now the biologists are going to turn the tables. What a neat story of petty warfare to watch unfold.

Perhaps it is that evolutionary biology has become merely another competing faith tradition, particularly for those who are just parroting what their professor and the popularizers tell them? Perhaps, Human Ape, there is no difference between you and the Christian fundamentalist who takes her scriptures literally and uncritically. Is it perhaps that you are just a fundamentalist follower in the Darwinian cult, yourself?

tmccool

Apparently you are unaware of the historical-metaphorical approach to Biblical interpretation. (Also called the historical-critical approach). Put some effort into actually studying the culture of the time that the Bible was written, who wrote the texts that make up the Bible, and why they wrote these texts, and you will understand this. I suggest reading Marcus Borg, whom I don’t always agree with his interpretation, but he is the best at putting the Bible into historical context. A more conservative theologian is N.T. Wright, one of the most noted NT scholars and currently teaching at Oxford. However, you might need to begin with an author with a general audience approach, like Brian McLaren.

tmccool

I really don’t know where to begin to reply to your infantile reply. Read my previous response to you and see you can muster an intelligent posting.

labronx

First you slip a back hand insult with ” I would think that someone with your intelligence would…”

Then you call my response infantile. You are a hypocrite.

Later, you suggest I read Marcus Borg. But then that means the Bible is not the pure word of God, huh?

Get your stories straight.

stjones911

Bartlett begins with a falsehood: “In Tennessee a new law took effect last month that allows teachers to discuss creationism as an alternative to evolution.” The law specifically prohibits this. The same hand-wringing hysteria surrounded Louisiana’s similar law, but four years later, no one has come up with an example of anyone teaching creationism in Louisiana. I don’t know if Bartlett is a liar, ignorant of the law, or simply repeating the company line of a Darwin industry in fear of real competition. One thing is clear, everything he thinks he knows about the Scopes trial came from “Inherit the Wind”. Writers who are interested in credibility should fist learn to separate fact from fiction, especially of the self-serving variety.

captain_chronicle

The case for creation is a strong one while Darwin’s threory is almost unsupportable by any fact. If Darwin was right about small evolutionary changes over millions of years, then we would be digging up fossils in various stages of evolution to the forms that we are today.

hiker1994

Post script: It occurred to me that some reading this may find a bit more explanation to be helpful. Intelligent design theory does not take a stance on what the source of the intelligence is. So a person who subscribes to the key elements of ID theory does not necessarily believe in God. Just because we are not aware of external sources of intelligence does not mean that external intelligence CANNOT exist. To pre-judge that point is to limit (and probably corrupt) the scientific method. Go where the evidence leads. If scientists are reading this who have compartmentalized ID theory in with creationism, I challenge you to break free from your biases and learn more about it.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Inverhills-Sophia/100000309951627 Inverhills Sophia

well said!

nuckollsr

This article and comments offer us insights to some human foibles. The founding fathers understood these shortcomings and wrote prohibitions for a state church into the Constitution. Instead of allowing our nation’s citizens to succumb to the rule of any particular faith, they gave us instead a religion of confidence. A religion based on the individual yearnings for liberty and a confidence that should the honorable citizen find him/herself accountable to a just god, they could assert that they endeavored to live their lives in the protection of their liberty . . . and the liberty of others. That when through accident or neglect, the were guilty of attacking the liberty of another citizen, they moved to make it right. And finally, they shared of their surplus with those needing a hand-up.

Any deity worthy of respect from the honorable citizen would expect no more. But should it become known that such a deity does not exist, what would it matter? The founding fathers gave us the framework for a heaven on earth where the community of honorable men could live free of fear from any other individual. But as Madison warned:

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal
controls on government would be necessary. In framing a
government which is to be administered by men over men,
the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the
government to control the governed; and in the next place
oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is,
no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience
has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

There is demonstrated willingness of dishonorable individuals both outside and inside our nation to reduce us to slaves (or fertilizer). The wise words of Mr. Madison remind us that attention to “auxiliary precautions” is far more important than arguing over the origins of our existence. When individuals pounding at our doors are intent upon giving us hell on earth we should be more attentive to the simple-ideas upon which an earthly harmony and contentment among men can be achieved.

Resolving arguments over origins will not help us stand off evil forces at the gates. Indulging in such arguments is a distraction. A taxation of time, talents and resources that would be better spent defending the here and now. Irrespective of any individual’s adoption or rejection of church dogma and theology, the right to choose will be exist only when liberty and heroic defense of liberty prevails. Whether mankind came to be by wave of the magic wand or through cosmic chance won’t much matter if we loose our grip on freedom.

The high-priests for both heavenly and earthly churches would have us resort to “hope”. To hope is to sit around quietly (or chanting at a ‘”occupy” happening) waiting for something nice to happen. Those who understand that men are not angels know that the dogma of hope is a recipe for submission to the forces of evil. Forces that can be resisted with tools our founding fathers gave us.

tmccool

I don’t fully understand what reading Marcus Borg has to do with whether or not the Bible is the “pure word of God,” but I guess you are assuming that every person who is a Christian is a literalist and fundamentalist. I am not. I am a Christian, and I do not believe that the Bible is the “pure word of God,” dictated by God word for word to humans. It is the words written by those who experienced God, sharing their mystical experience with the true living God. They related their experiences with poetry, parables, and history. If some Christians need to believe that the world was created in six, 24-hour days, and I do not, I’m willing to put that disagreement aside and talk about what the first creation story, which is a beautiful piece of Hebrew poetry, tells us about the nature of God.

You see, our modern minds, influenced by the Age of Reason and scientific inquiry, equate “facts” with “truth.” The Hebrews and first century Christians had a a different interpretation of what truth is. The Bible is full of truths, and some historical facts as well, but it was not meant to be a history book or a scientific text. It is meant to be a narrative of the story of God and his interaction with creation and history.

http://www.facebook.com/maryjanedw Maryjane Dunn

Let me start out with a few basic personal facts. I am a practicing Christian. I hold both conservative and liberal views depending on the social issue. I believe in the science of evolution. I read and study both the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) and New Testament — as religious texts, with historical insights, but not as scientific texts. There are two complete Creation Stories in Genesis: Chapter 1:1 – 2:3 and Chapter 2:4 – 25. The “Fall” (not strictly part of the Creation Story begins in Chapter 3.

The first story is the elegant and majestic “In the beginning God” and these Hebrew words (translated into Greek) gives the Book of Genesis its name. When I read this story I am always struck by the fact that so many thousands of years ago, “man” could get so much of the evolutionary story correct:

1) There is a void. Then there is a separation of light from dark…a big bang if you will
2) There is water on the solid part of what will become the earth, and a “sky” (atmosphere) is created
3) Dry ground appears and vegetation starts to grow
4) Other planets, stars, etc. are all around the earth. (Cool, we’re not alone.)
5) Sea life and birds develop.
6) Mammals, reptiles, amphibians develop. Oh yeah, and after all of them, humans come along, and are told they are to raise animals and farm to support themselves.
7) Okay, looks good…but keep reading because humans screw up and following are some good lessons to be learned about getting along, setting up governments, taking care of the old and infirm, and other helpful stuff.

jsibelius

What is it about THIS topic that turns people with otherwise rational responses into insulting jerks? A reasoned comment deserves a reasoned response, not a statement impugning the judgment and intellect of the commenter. These are the responses I see for those who say they believe in evolution and God at the same time.

So I ask this: what is wrong with believing in God if it doesn’t actually preclude a belief in scientific principles?

daytripper

I love how this issue still garners so much attention and passion. While it is arguable whether evolution is a story or not, neither it nor creationism hold a candle to the story of the debate!

From where I sit, I am intrigued by McAdams’ thesis, particularly in light of what seems to be the driving force of evolution: randomness and probability. How can you tell a riveting story where motive and drive all boil down to the dull and wholly uninspiring vagaries of chance? Interesting idea.

It is disturbing to read some posters’ offerings in this thread committing the musty, dusty, and crusty error of describing evolution as a theory and, as such, one which is relegated to the bins of “unsupported or only partially supported scientific hypotheses.” Evolution is almost as well an established scientific fact as we have. The theory of natural selection is one theory that accounts for the fact, but others do as well, like intelligent design, adaptation, etc.. They may all be argued, but most in scientific circles accept one or more of them.

Even the staunchest of biblical scholars yield to the evidence of evolution found in their own favorite text, the bible. Few genuinely believe the story of the Tower of Babel as describing the literal mechanism for the differences in languages. Fewer still can deny that we no longer live as long as Methuselah. Something must have evolved.

jsibelius

Hiker, perhaps not. But in Kitzmiller v. Dover School District, the plaintiff was able to show proof that “Intelligent Design” was just a secularized substitute for “Creationism.”

Human Ape, your comments aren’t really helping your argument. Instead of calling names (like childish, idiot, liar, stupid…), why not respond with civility? You catch more flies that way.

mabeelrc

“. . . polls like one that found that almost two-thirds of Americans say they would continue to believe what their faith teaches even if it runs counter to scientific findings.”

I like to think of it this way: Almost two-thirds of Americans prefer to believe Moses even when he runs counter to Dawkins.

jsibelius

removing double-post

ralphelton2

How about adult stem cells. God was the first to show us how it could work.

gravesjl_44

McAdams argument hangs on the notion that humans love stories. This is true of all humans, and therefore we should conclude that all humans should prefer mythic stories of creation over scientitfic ones (such as organic evolution.) This of course does not explain the wide variablity in the acceptance of evolutionary science around the world. Specifically societies that are not dominated by Abrahamic religious traditions (e.g. China and Japan) don’t seem to have as much difficulty accepting evolution. On my last visit to China I learned that evolution was a solid portion of the 8th grade curriculum in China and emphasized throughout secondary eduction in biology.

Another weakness of this idea is that it doesn’t explain why evolution is singled out in the Western world for such resistance. Classical and recent trends in ficition (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Song of Ice and Fire, etc.) indicate that people love stories that include magic. Yet the magic in these tails violates all the laws of chemistry and physics we know of, but we do not see widespread anti-physics and chemistry movements…we do not see people arguing for wizardry and alchemy to given equal time in the HS classroom.

Evolution is resisted so violently because its challenges the notion that their is a kind/omnipotent creator watching over our destinies. Some people cannot handle the idea that the universe is impersonal or that the diety if there is one, isn’t direclty involved in their day to day lives or ultimate fate. People resist assaults on what they think is sacred, whichever part of the political spectrum they belong to. Interestling enough, evolutionary psychologists have argued that the very reason that people “believe” in agency in the natural universe is an adaptation. The ancient human who heard a noise in the night may have thought, its just the wind, or its some force with agency. The penalty for believing its just the wind (when it could have been a leopard) would have been severe. If you thought the sound resulted from agency, you might have been more alert, surviving the leopard attack, and therefore increasing your chance of eventual reproduction.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Inverhills-Sophia/100000309951627 Inverhills Sophia

so you replace the assumption of humans wanting stories with humans wanting/needing to reproduce? why? are you suggesting there is in fact a “better” way to live? if so, i am not sure how the theory of evolution gets you there? again, belief in god and belief in evolution are not mutually exclusive, why people want to argue they are remains beyond me.

labronx

“I am a Christian, and I do not believe that the Bible is the “pure word of God,” dictated by God word for word to humans.”

It really is amusing, in this day and age, how some people cannot let go of the ghost. It is odd how they try to use their intellect to justify a belief in magic. So they sling all this BS at people like “You see, our modern minds, influenced by the Age of Reason and
scientific inquiry, equate “facts” with “truth.” and blah blah blah blah blah.

So if it floats your boat that you can take parts of the Bible and leave the rest… if it floats your boat that you can believe all that poppycock about seven days and Moses and magic trees and talking snakes and God that likes to torture Job and Jesus teleported up to heaven after he snuck out of tomb and how accepting Jesus is the only way to atone with God all that silly self-righteous judjemental crap… if it gets you through the day that it all makes sense to you… be my guest.

(But we both know that in the twiilight hours when no one is watching… even you don’t believe a word of it either, else you wouldn’t be arguing, you’d be busy believing)

http://www.facebook.com/people/Inverhills-Sophia/100000309951627 Inverhills Sophia

funny, i hear it differently. i hear that two-thirds of americans find more comfort in their beliefs than in those of others. these attempts to make it a science vs religion debate misses the key point that we all must believe, what we believe “in” appears open to debate.

Piobairean

You’re mistaken – the proof for evolution is immense from both the fossil record and genetics.
There is zero proof for creation whether it’s the creation myths of the Norse, Romans, Egyptians, Mayans ………

Piobairean

Creationism is NOT a theory – point me to any peer-reviewed paper about creationism or any prediction made by creationists or to any experiment that can be performed testing creationism.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Inverhills-Sophia/100000309951627 Inverhills Sophia

but what does the “proof” prove exactly? that evolution occurs, fine. but what does that mean? that all is random? fine, then why not believe in flying spaghetti monsters? if all is random what difference does any one theory have over another?

http://www.facebook.com/people/Inverhills-Sophia/100000309951627 Inverhills Sophia

creationism is a cosmological argument. evolution is a biological argument. apples and oranges people. intelligent design, well, that is a different “story”.

Piobairean

St. Augustine in the 4th century A.D. wrote a essay on reconciling faith and reason – worth reading.

big_giant_head

Well, maybe. That combined with their own intuition, which believes what it thinks it sees and cannot really grasp the idea that a human lifespan is utterly insignificant.

Piobairean

It’s always been ugly for the non-Christians who have to listen to the religious silliness at every public meeting, sports event, you name it.

Piobairean

Sorry, my comment below was in response to the comment that Dawkins has made the debate ugly.

erikjensen

Cdesign proponentsist,

You’ve given us a straw man and an argument from incredulity. The theory of evolution doesn’t claim that intelligence came out of nothingness, so there is no point in you attacking that claim. You also don’t know where DNA came from, therefore Goddidit (I mean supernaturalintelligentagentdidit, you wouldn’t want to be accused of substituting religious dogma for science, would you).

jsibelius

I just realized something. The author is WRONG when he states: “Polls show that fewer than half of Americans accept evolution. Most of us still don’t buy it.” Click the link to the poll and do the math. Right at 50% believe in evolution. Only 45% don’t “buy it” – 45% is not “most of us.”

tmccool

Apparently you are unable to carry on a true dialogue on this subject, and so I must step back. Claim a victory if that makes your day. Enjoy your weekend!

neurojoe

I teach neuroscience and physiology at a Jesuit institution, and I work in evolution in one way or another to just about every class meeting that we have. But I still struggle with framing it to the students in this way: ”
God-directed evolution is every bit as interesting as creationism and far more consistent with the facts.”
It certainly is just as interesting, but I don’t know how to use the word “facts” when discussing a supernatural phenomenon, or at the very least, one we can’t (yet?) observe directly using experimentation. Science and the supernatural speak two different languages; a fact to me is something that used to be a hypothesis, and was verified pretty much beyond doubt through experimental means by many different people. God may certainly well exist, but we have no “facts” to prove that.

gfraenkel

Darwinian genetics and its development with molecular biology isn’t a “story” any more than relativity, quantum mechanics and superconductivity. The development of molecular genetics has been written up by different people and it’s a great story. The science behind evolutionary genetics is the same science that brought us the laws of thermodynamics, the polio vaccine, cell phones, antibiotics and cable television. The evolutionary science believers should scrap all of that too. Don’t go to doctors.Trash the cell phone. The sad thing is than some religious leaders (many on the right) have persuaded people that if you have faith you can believe in anything and never mind the evidence. Wishful thinking is now respectable. Here is my suggestion. Tell them that God, being omnipotent, has revealed that science to scientists. It’s OK.

ohreally

The theory of evolution by natural selection and belief in god(s) may not be mutually exclusive, but the epistemological frameworks upon which they conventionally rest certainly are–at least to those who take the scientific method seriously. If your sole argument is that these two claims are not mutually exclusive, then you have some mere reading and thinking to do.

mmgriffith

But evolution is not a completely random process. Exterior phenomenon such as climate and food supply, as well as choice of breeding partners nudges evolution in particular directions. Look at the noses of the old world monkeys vs new world monkeys–one shape is better for eating the type of fruit one finds in the local forests.

scades

I taught a sociology of religion course for years at our small liberal arts college. The only “compromise” I made was to avoid using the word anthropologists would in describing creation stories and their sequels: “myth.” In more than 20 years no one ever complained that I offended them or their beliefs–so it’s do-able.
But a public high school is a different venue from a private college, and a Ph. D. sociologist is likely to present the material differently than might a BA social studies teacher. Indeed the course that my students found unexceptionable might well offend a deeply believing high school student or her parents.
Better to keep the subject out of public schools in the first place.

Socratease2

This is unremarkable. Of course evolution is unsatisfying as a “warm nursery blanket” narrative that you can wrap yourself up in and be a little less fearful of the cold, dark uncaring universe. Yes, human beings understand, well not sure that is best word, people believe things when they are presented as “personalized” because we understand the world through a human/primate/mammalian filter and that determines the mechanisms through which we can reduce anxiety/threat/uncertainty. That is all people want at end of day is to feel safe and to feel their environment is predictable. Evolution does none of that. But the idea of a personalized god with a long white beard who sits on a cloud and makes sure your guardian angel will keep you from falling down elevator shafts, now that is a useful narrative. People want a god that reminds them of kindly Gandlaf the wizard. Once again, why should it be different? As short-lived biological organisms, we are cognitively incapable of understanding the incomprehensively long time frames that natural selection requires to effect evolutionary change. The “story” seems impossible because we are too limited to grasp it. But we do understand the concept of a “protective parent” who loves us and hence the nonsense of religion ensues. As I see it, religion is a great medication for people who simply refuse to accept that your life is limited and that ultimately you have no control over anything. To be more precise, people who say they have religious faith are confusing themselves, what they believe in is “magic” not “faith.” It is fine if you don’t want to think but in that case don’t be a drag on those who choose to see the world as it is.

gravesjl_44

All organisms must reproduce or they go extinct. This is not conscious “need”, it simply is the way organisms work, and it also means that evolution must happen. It also is not an assumption, it is simple biological fact.

Also, one does not “believe” in evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory, complete with hypotheses that can be falsified. We accept evolution as the best explanation for explaining the orign and diversity of living organisms. On this point, creationism absolutely fails to explain either effectively. The fact that special creationism does not explain the feaures of life has been demonstrated for over 300 years.

I agree that the reality of organic evolution has nothing to do with the presence/absence of a supreme being…nothing I wrote in my previous post can be taken to state that I believe the two are related to each other.

11274135

I’m a flat out atheist, but I don’t care much in general if other people are not. I start to care when they try to build their religious beliefs into the law of the land in order to control the behavior of others in ways that has nothing to do with having a civil society.

gerard_harbison

Dunno about God, but Satan certainly plays for the Yankees.

gerard_harbison

Few areas of science make a good story.

Statistical thermodynamics. “Let’s put a nearly infinite number of particles in a box. Now let’s do that a nearly infinite number of times, and take an average”

Special relativity: “Let’s start with a counter-intuitive assumption, and see how it makes the already counter-intuitive laws of physics considerably more complicated”

Quantum electrodynamics “Infinite numbers of things are constantly appearing out of nothing, and then disappearing before they violate the uncertainty principle. But we can still count them!”

If you want stories, try Dick and Jane.

gerard_harbison

Quantum mechanics also says nothing about right and wrong. That’s not usually considered a flaw.

The problem is that religion once claimed ontology as its bailiwick, and is resisting eviction, despite having nothing more in the way of title than squatter’s rights.

11144703

It is a legal war when religious fundamentalists insist that scientists teach creationism in a science classroom. Epperson, Aguillard, and Kitzmiller already won the war, but the fundamentalists continue their battles.

Caleb50

This is nonsense. Scientists do not find God unnecessary and irrelevant. Scientists can’t consider God as an explanation for natural phenomena because such a claim is not testable. As far as your statement that God directed evolution is more consistent with the facts, what facts are you referring to? There are no scientific facts (observations) that bear on the question of God’s existence. Science can’t access that kind of question. And not being able to assess the question is not the same thing as asserting that God doesn’t exist. You are mixing apples and oranges here in a way that does not advance a basic understanding of what science is and isn’t. And I completely disagree that science “portrays” itself at war with religion. Scientists present theory. If others choose to be offended by those theories and can’t reconcile them with their faith, well that is their problem.

maguszoroaster

What is most disturbing in these ongoing arguments between science and religion, beyond the mutual cruel stereotyping, beyond the idea that the two subjects somehow lack compatibility, is the lack of respect and civility. So someone believes in creationism? So someone believes in evolution? So someone is agnostic about the details? Vilifying and mocking him as stupid, uninformed, backward, devious…this is not helpful. Meet your so-called enemy, talk to him, learn from him, share what you have in common, and develop mutual respect. Continue to disagree if disagreement is demanded, but be respectful and civil, and see your common humanity, whether you can agree about the origins of that humanity or not.

-Jeffrey Dennis Pearce

katisumas

That seems to be so very true and didn’t Medieval European thinkers solved the issue by separating “knolwdege through reason from knowledge through revelation”?

I am no Christian myself but I can easily live with the idea of different sort of coexisting types of knowledge. After all can’t a painting of a landscape based in the radiance of a risng sun, or of that suns broken up into some of its infinite fragments, carries as much knowlege, albeit of a verry different kind, as that of the latest discoveries of astro-physics? (actually, don’t two modes of representations, for instance astral mathematics and art, can meet through a very close encounter?

It’s just that many so called fundamental US “reborn” Christians don’t seem to get it. So sad…..

katisumas

Well put Caleb!

katisumas

I sure agree with you! How can one “believe” in atheism? Why do myths disturb Dawkins so much?

In my personal experience, I’ve always found mythology fascinating and the receptacle for much human knowldege set in a form easily transferable from one generation to the next. It’s people who, at one point in their lives, swallowed myths hook sink and lines who later on bcame offended by myths. I can still hear my step father’s rantings about the Virgin Mary: “A virgin birth! ”how dare they tell such a story of little children”!?

katisumas

Good grief! What arrogance. We mere humans will never know which came first. So live with it, grab whatever knoledge faith offers, and rejoice in the windows science opens for us.

katisumas

beautifully put!

tanyaperkins

And evolution doesn’t hold that “those instances just developed out of nothingness.” Evidence abounds that what we perceive as “built-in intelligence” arose from a range of design forces, among them natural selection, genetic drift, horizontal gene transfer, exaptation and a host of other influences, all of which have profound ability to shape phylogenies. That evolution implies evidences of “intelligent design” arose by chance or out of nothingness is an old canard that deserves to be put to rest once and for all.

katisumas

Hiker, of course there is evidence of intelligence in the world//universe. That this intelligence based on chance doesn’t take anything away from it. We (human primates) have created myths attritbuting the existence of the world entirely to a trickster god (which makes sense to me, I mean who else, or rather what else, would have made this insane world and force us to live in it!).

If you look at the amazing variety of human stories of the coming into being of the word, you’ll see many carry evidence of the action of chance in the universe, thus harmonizing quite well with evolutionary theory. The reason that what are now our three main world religions (our three closely linked Abrahamic religions) are petering outside the realm of science is because they miss out on chance. They miss out on chance because of their positing an absolute god and his/her/it absolute power over all things….

AS for you –gasp– Human Ape, sorry, I don’t only not agree with you but couldn’t read your posts till the bitter end. Your posts carry the misasma of absolutism and you know, ultimately, that one absolutim merges with all others regardless of their surface content. For instance, we now have Islamicists, but also Christianicists, and Judaisicists, and Hinduicists, and Atheicists, etc…. (perhaps someone could coin some better words?). The thing that makes these soul sisters is the stench of hatred and thus incipient violence they carry, and —good grief!— your posts sure carry plenty of that.

Try to rethink your stance and the reason why you have to resort to personal hatred to make your point.? Oh, and why has science become a god in your parlance?

alisonca

What about a Da Vinci Code style movie with Darwin as the protagonist?

tuxthepenguin

There’s only one thing I can say in reply to a comment like yours:

???

http://www.facebook.com/davidmihjn David Roemer

Evolution is much more closely related to the existence of God than the Big Bang. The Big Bang does not violate any law of physics. Evolution, however, only applies to the bodies of human beings, not their souls. The human soul is the metaphysical principle (form) that makes humans equal to one another and is correlated with the metaphysical principle that makes humans different from each other (matter or body). Atheists think that the soul is just an idea, but religious people think the human soul is spiritual.

Also, there is a sense in which evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, which is an absolute truth. The entropy (complexity) of an isolated system of non-interacting particles can never decrease for the same reason that a flipped coin will be heads half of the time. In trying to understand evolution, biologists assume that the primary structure of a protein is a system of 20 types of non-interacting particles (amino-acids). They calculate how long it would take a computer to generate a protein with the random selection of amino-acids in 3 billion years. This places a limit on the ability of natural selection to explain evolution. Biologists qualify natural selection by saying it explains “adaptive evolution.” In other words, natural selection explains why giraffes have long necks, but not how giraffes evolved from bacteria.

The fact that so many laymen think natural selection explains evolution shows how irrational people can be about anything connected with religion. Another example of irrationality is that the American Journal of Physics published an article titled “Entropy and evolution” in November, 2008, with a thermodynamic equation showing that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. I have a PhD in physics and can assure you that the equation is absurd. I’m trying to get the AJP to publish a retraction, but am getting extremely irrational responses. I explain the absurdity of the article at
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/MAYnewsletter12.pdf.
Another article that explains it is at
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/more_philosophical_than_scient052441.html

http://www.facebook.com/EFTarsier Ethan Lucas Fulwood

Ugh.
“In Tennessee a new law took effect last month that allows teachers to discuss creationism as an alternative to evolution.” The law doesn’t *actually* say this. It allows teachers to discuss “strengths and weaknesses” of “controversial” scientific topics. Evolution wasn’t even mentioned in the final bill, and remains in the state board of education’s standards for science. It’s a bad bill that could have the bad knock-off effect of empowering some teachers to introduce Creationist material as pointing out “weaknesses” in evolution, but honestly I think the practical effect of the bill will be near nil, as it has been in Louisiana where a similar bill passed without much fanfare years ago. The worst thing about the bill is probably just how embarrassing it is and how it results in articles like this.

vageiger

The best example of a story based on evolution is Galapagos by Kurt Vonnegut, and not surprisingly it is his least known work.

Another problem with evolution as a story is that it is taught so badly. I recently asked an honors class at a large state university what natural selection is and…. here comes survival of the fittest…. sigh. Did they understand the difference between deterministic and contingent explanations? No. the majority of these students are going to go to graduate school, they had already been accepted. And they were mostly science or engineering majors. They were all perfectly capable of understanding how evolution really works, but they had been taught incorrectly. If these students do not understand evolution how can we put any stock into the fact that the supposed story of evolution understood by a majority of Americans is actually relevant to whether they understand it or not.

I think it is very likely that the story they know is not the real story, which means they don’t like inaccurate story they are told. Maybe they would like the real story better.

11144703

You mean those non-Christians who have their own fairy tale creation myths? Or should those non-Jewish creation myths be recognized in classrooms as “celebrating diversity” while only those fundamentalist Christians are to be demonized who (perniciously and stupidly) insist upon the Jewish creation myth be taught in science classrooms?

sdryer

Belief in evolution (and other fundamentals of science) is much stronger in the other parts of the world. Unless people in, say, Germany and France are wired differently, then we have to reject the theory that evolution is a bad story and people need stories to believe in something, like young children. Instead, evolution does not resonate in parts of the US because people here are taught to reject it, and also because they are all too often taught a caricature of it by teachers who are not sufficiently prepared, or who may not actually believe it themselves.

sdryer

Please name some paleontologists who are not so sanguine and who are so troubled.

sdryer

I have never seen a soul.

sdryer

Even though Dawkins is a real historical person and Moses, maybe not.

sdryer

Where to even begin with this? I give up.

sdryer

One is true and the other is not, but in the really long scheme of things it doesn’t really make any difference, since eventually our sun will explode and we will all be extinct. In the much shorter run, it’s pretty hard to understand anything at all about, say, human genetics, without evolution at its base. And there are a whole bunch of really useful and practical things one can learn from human genetics, like the two gene products I am studying which cause familial kidney diseases (but which may also be involved in non genetic kidney disease and which may be useful drug targets). Also, even though your existence is the result of a whole bunch of incredibly improbably random events, but you can still try to enjoy your life, and maybe even value it more for its intrinsic improbability.

Zagros

You are creating a strawman argument. Go back and read the original statement in context before you take exception and understand that I take issue with scientists who overstep their bounds and argue that God doesn’t exist. I also embrace the notion that science and religion are in separate spheres. I wrote that “God-directed evolution is every bit as interesting as creationism and far more consistent with the facts.” The facts in question are not about God. They are about evolution. Thus, God-directed evolution is far more consistent with the facts than is creationism and it is a better way for religious people can reconcile science with faith than to use creationism.

As to your statement, “If others choose to be offended by those theories and can’t reconcile them with their faith, well that is their problem”, you are mistaken. It is the problem of scientists who overstep their bounds. I certainly can reconcile it with my faith. My problem is with scientists (Richard Dawkins, for example, in The God Delusion) who try to misuse science to prove that God doesn’t exist. Richard Dawkins isn’t acting like a scientist when he attacks God: he is like a bigoted and highly intolerant atheist. Just as religious people should not misuse their books to try to argue against science, scientists should not misuse science to try to argue against God (they are free to argue against God as atheists, however).

Zagros

You are absolutely correct that we cannot prove that God exists but the quesiton is whether the creation story or the evoution story is more consistent with facts, not whether God exists. Logic dictates that we separate out these two ideas when parsing the arugment. I am not arguing that God exists (although I firmly believe that He does). I am arguing that if you are going to argue for God’s existence, it is better to use God-directed evolution than to use creationism. Creationism is inconsistent with the facts. Evolution is consistent with the facts. God-directed evolution is neither provable nor disprovable. Something which is neither provable nor disprovable is more consistent with the facts than is something that is inconsistent with the facts. Indeed, the proper (and only) way of stating this is to say it as I have: God-directed evolution is more consistent with the facts than is creationism. Simply because something (God-directed evolution) is consistent with the facts does not make it a fact but something that is inconsistent with the facts (creationism) is likely wrong.

Zagros

“If others choose to be offended by those theories and can’t reconcile them with their faith, well that is their problem.”

Actually, as I think about it, this statement of yours also is absolutely wrong. If others are offended by science and can’t reconcile it with their faith, it is the scientist’s problem, not theirs. After all, believing in creationism or evolution will not matter one bit to the average citizen but it does matter to the scientist who receives funding from public agencies (no belief = no funding — see global warming for an indicator of the problem).

This is why scientists have only two options (sticking their head in the sand a la it is not my problem is not one of them): attempt to destroy religion like the Richard Dawkins of the world try to do (a very bad idea because science will come out the loser in such a battle) or demonstrate to those of faith how to reconcile faith with science (the only option that makes any sense). Sorry, but the problem is yours, not ours. Even if intelligent design is never taught in science class (and I am not saying that it should), it definitely will need to be taught in school (perhaps in philosophy class?) where everyone learns it because the only way evolutionary science will be accepted by the masses in the US in the short to medium term is by bridging the chasm between science and faith using the intelligent design concept.

seraphpendragon

Lousy story? It’s probably more that it’s hard to wrap your head around, like explaining the origins of the universe, or even just how large the universe is.

And because jerks can’t help but be religion-bashers…Non-believers LOVE to trash the Bible. I’d like to meet one with the cahoneys to trash the Koran. Last I checked, Muslims believe in God too. You always like to quote Old Testament, forgetting there’s a New one too, so go ahead and start plucking stuff from the Koran. I’m waiting to see how courageous you really are. >_>

bobbrodman

“Stories are about a character finding a solution to a problem. Evolution has problems and solutions but no character.” It’s a story about Darwin finding a solution to adaptations and common descent. It’s a story about Mendel finding a solution to inheritance. It’s about Watson & Crick finding a solution to DNA. It’s about Dart, Johanson, and the Leakey’s find the missing links. It’s about nothing but people finding solutions to problems that results in the holy grail of science — a unifying theory.

11144703

Seraphpendragon, you wrote,

“Non-believers LOVE to trash the Bible. I’d like to meet one with the cahoneys to trash the Koran.”

I’m a non-believer. The Hebrew Bible has some repulsive parts, but some other parts contain much wisdom and beauty.

The Koran has some repulsive parts, but some other parts contain much wisdom and beauty.

If I’m wrong, and Muhammad the prophet is reading this email from Paradise or from Hell, I hope he’s smiling at my attempt at Confucian harmony.

And I hope I fulfilled your requirement for testicular fortitude.

Socratease2

“It is the words written by those who experienced God, sharing their mystical experience with the true living God.”

Wow, even a crappy biblical lawyer can ride a donkey through the holes in this logic. Let’s see, the bible contains not the words of god, but the words of people who directly know god? Who checked these people’s references? If there is a “true living god” why is it that his (why not she? Does god have a penis??) “teaching” was only capable of being transcribed between 100-300 AD? And why were only certain books of the bible considered true but others (eg Book of Thomas) purposely left out based on HUMAN decision making . So god spoke Aramaic and for last 2,000 years has been working some radical banker’s hours. That’s all you got? God should definitely start using an Outlook calendar, he keeps telling these people (apparently having a sacred and mysterious conversation with the true living god) to go live in caves and wait for the apocalypse. But he keeps forgetting to rapture everyone! Makes for some awkward cave discussions, I am sure. Anyone can have a mystical experience and they are much more profitable when you don’t include the fariry tale clap-trap. Try Buddhism, it is the only authentic personal religion, the rest of the Sky God stuff is so much distraction. But I would watch the movie “Godzilla and Mothra take on Yaweh and Mohammed: the Final Showdown.”

mathmaven

If Americans coming out of the American K-12 system don’t feel they need to pay attention to science unless it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy, then the education system has failed them. Big time.

pcnsc

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

Recent Posts

Archives

Contact Us

College to House Students on Cruise Ship During Mold Cleanup

Share

E-mail a Friend

Recent Posts

Archives

Contact Us