Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools

[stereologist]

Lawcat, you say genetics should be taught in school. Why doesn't this fall under your scheme of liklihood or does it?

[lemit]

Scientists should be locked up in labs and universities, but not in policymaking chambers.

 

To whom would we give the key?

 

There is no particular qualification to be a policymaker. Many are lawyers, but the founders were mostly farmers. Jefferson and Franklin were part-time (gasp!) scientists. They came from an age that believed in studying all sides of a question before positing an answer to it--The Age of Reason. They applied social and political science to the prevailing humanist philosophy and came up with a pretty good model for a country. Actually, IMHO, they came up with a pretty good country.

 

I think I'd rather have scientific study informing decisions than, say, prayer and fasting. So if those scientists ever escape, I hope they will run for public office.

 

--lemit

[Galapagos]

Here is a video of NSCE executive director Eugenie C Scott giving a lecture about creationism past, present, and future. I'm gonna try to listen to it in the background while working later on if I can afford the distraction..

 

YouTube - What Will the Creationists Do Next? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FUJiFx3lVA

[buddhaboy]

i know there has been an evolution of this human form...its obvious... but hve we evolved inside... ? or are we pre programmed to remain violent, animalistic, selfish, greedy,etc...(just in case one day we need to return to that state).....on the outside we evolved, got cultured, got civilized etc... but why havent we evolved much on the inside? you know what its like... someone cuts you up in the car, the reaction it can provoke in you... someone take something from you and you can quickly become as violent or more so than any "wild" animal,,, so yes ...evolution in schools. but also the question of inner evolutiom too, and if that can change.

[stereologist]

Buddha boy you sound like you want evolutionto progress in a particular direction. That's not how it works.

[Pyrotex]

i know there has been an evolution of this human form...its obvious... but have we evolved inside... ?..

Hello, buddhaboy,

It really helps to make sure which definition of "evolve" you are using.

One definition of evolve is "slow change over time".

In this sense, rivers evolve, mountains evolve, human cultures evolve.

 

The definition we are concerned with in this thread is for biological evolution:

 

Biological evolution is

(1) the slow accumulation of changes to an animal species, caused by the accumulation of genetic changes to the DNA of that species;

(2) the mechanism whereby these genetic changes get made.

 

The Mechanism of Biological evolution is dominated by several natural processes, including: genetic mutations, sexual mixing of DNA during procreation, natural selection of certain individuals as more "fit" than others, sexual selection of certain mates as more "attractive" than others, and the presence of natural "forces" that tend to kill individuals before they are able to mate and pass on their DNA; such things as predators, climate, competetive species, disease, parasites, geography, etc.

 

As to the "internal nature" of humans, I think you are referring to violence, greed, loyalty, cooperation, etc. Right?

Well, biological evolution has a lot to do with how we behave, but Culture plays an even bigger role. You and I are probably just as violent as, say, Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun. But we don't act out our violence because we grew up in more peaceful and law-abiding cultures.

 

Yes, Cultures change over time. But that's not biological evolution. That's something else. We could call it cultural evolution, and it would have a totally different Mechanism.

[lemit]

I haven't read "The Origin of Species," but I've been hearing quite a bit about it. Maybe I should look into it.

 

What I have read is Stephen Jay Gould's columns in "Natural History." In one of those, he pointed out that the theory of evolution, if thought of as a slow, consistent, mechanical process, has some flaws of the kind shown here in lawcat's post. An easy example Gould used was the Viceroy moth, which probably didn't develop its mimicry of the Monarch butterfly in a slow, gradual, mechanical process.

 

So, if we add chaos to evolution, as has famously been done with the dinosaurs, who seem to have evolved out of existence rather rapidly, we end up with a theory of evolution that is no longer subject to the claim that it's just a different religion, with rigid rules that must be followed.

 

And we end up with a theory of evolution that allows human influence on climate to be a formidable problem. I don't know if we will follow the route of the Viceroy moth or the route of the dinosaurs. But the longer we follow the organization of the ants (two pulling one direction while three are pulling the other), the closer we come to having that decision made for us.

 

--lemit

[InfiniteNow]

Origin is a bit old and outdated, but fun if you're into the history of ideas. Evolution science has come quite a substantially long way since old Chuck Darwin wrote that, and you should probably instead check out Evolution by Futuyma to get yourself up to speed. It's one of the better sources.

 

 

 

Amazon.com: Evolution, Second Edition: Douglas Futuyma: Books http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Second-Douglas-Futuyma/dp/0878932232/ref=pd_bbs_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241281092&sr=8-5http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Second-Douglas-Futuyma/dp/0878932232/ref=pd_bbs_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241281092&sr=8-5