Richard Dawkins: Evolution should be taught to all children, starting at age 5.

[backscatter712]

FINALLY, SOME SANITY!!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/01/richard-dawkins-evolution-children-five

Children in the UK should be taught the science of evolution by natural selection from the age of five, says Prof Richard Dawkins.

The Oxford biologist argues that evolution is so important to our understanding of the world that it should form part of the primary school curriculum. He is dismissive of the notion that evolution is a difficult concept for young children to grasp.

"Evolution is a truly satisfying and complete explanation of existence, and I suspect that this is something a child can appreciate from an early age," he writes in the Times.

"If we are going to be prescriptive about teaching history, comparative religion, maths and English – and I wouldn't wish to sweep those things away – I don't see why we shouldn't be prescriptive about teaching the explanation for our existence."

Good for Dawkins! He's right on in stating that evolution should be taught early, since it is a fundamental principal of biology, and hopefully, it'll help the kids question the Christian fairy-tales the fundies try to brainwash them with.

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[EFerrari]

2. K&R

[Kurmudgeon]

3. So they didn't teach science in the UK in the 60's?

Meanwhile, that doesn't excuse prejudice and spiteful nicknames.
Your "sanity" is disinformation and ego feeding.

[Lost-in-FL]

4. Prejudice? Where?

Where all of this coming from?

[Kurmudgeon]

20. Calling Christians "fundies", accusations of brain washing, how could you miss it?

[Lost-in-FL]

21. "Fundie" Christians do brainwash kids... You do know that.

Where is the prejudice coming from? Or is it fake outrage?

The OP is referring to "fundamentalist" only (both Christian and Muslim fundies in the UK don't want evolution taught in schools), wanting the teaching of creationism as science.

BTW, I know lots of Christians who say evolution is real and have no objections to the teaching of evolution instead of creationism. Don't be so sensitive.

[LeftishBrit]

31. Quite true. The Archbishop of Canterbury has recommended teaching evolution not creationism in

science lessons.

The UK is very different from the USA in this respect; most religious people are NOT fundies. There is a vociferous minority of Christian plus some Muslim fundies who want their kids taught creationism in science lessons, but it's against the National Curriculum expectations, and is not a normal practice even in church-aided schools. There have been complaints about some private schools doing this, but it's not usual at all.

[Kurmudgeon]

119. Looks more like a prejudicial assumption to me, unless you have psychic super powers.

Not all fundamentalists want the same thing, no more than the difference tween Christians and "Christers", Atheists and "Athies"
Of course evolution is real, it's part of God's Creation! A Theist did major research about it in fact, you may have heard of him.

[Lost-in-FL]

128. Fundamentalists brainwash their kids with untruths, that is 1 reason they are called "fundies".

"Not all fundamentalists want the same thing... "

Am I reading that you are talking from experience? That explains your explosive temper tantrum.

[Quantess]

106. Fundies DO brainwash kids.

Religious fundamentalism = brainwashing.
You're really going to try to say it isn't?

"Fundies" refers to extremists of any religion. Muslims, in particular. In the USA, it's generally Christians.

[Kurmudgeon]

120. Yes, I've met plenty of Atheist Fundies.

I've seen quite a few here in fact!

[Quantess]

123. Oh, good grief.

A lot of Christians accept evolution. I don't think a Christian must be at the "fundie" level to reject evolution, but, it helps. Likewise, not everyone who accepts evolution is an atheist. There are quite a lot of people, including myself, who believe that god, or a divine force, or the eternal spirit of life, or whatever you choose to call it, is responsible for ecolution of all life. I'm an agnostic, and for me, that means that I believe in a spiritual and eternal god of some sort. And again, there are plenty of Christians who believe that God is behind evolution, and that the bible shouldn't be taken literally. It's really not as black/white as you are painting the issue to be.

[Lost-in-FL]

127. Are they brainwashing kids?

Do they knock on people's doors to give their message?

Are you getting your DU inbox bombarded by their evangelical message of unbelief?

Have they offered you their time to teach you the ways of evolutionary life?

Seriously, you are over-dramatizing the whole thing. You are overreacting like if the OP actually called you in particular saying that you are a fundie just because you happen to be Christian. Calm down, go to church or something.

BTW, evolution being god's work is debatable.

[white_wolf]

131. If disproving ancient myths with scientific facts makes me an "Atheist Fundie" than so be it.

I'll keep my science and the Christians can keep their collection of myths.

[sarcasmo]

153. I know of zero Atheists brainwashing kids, funny stuff, Atheist fundies thanks for the laugh.

[ET Awful]

156. That's not entirely possible, since the term "fundie" implies a fundamentalist approach

to a written doctrine, usually religious.

Since atheists are not a unified group, do not all believe the same things and have no written doctrine to abide by in a fundamentalist manner, it is quite impossible for there to be a "fundie" atheist.

[LeftishBrit]

29. There wasn't a National Curriculum in the 1960s...

and science teaching was limited in many schools until secondary age, not out of any ideological principle, but often through lack of resources. We did do Nature Study in my primary school in the late 60s/early 70), but most of that IIRC involved drawing pictures of animals and plants, copied from books rather than the natural world. Occasionally when it didn't rain, we went on Nature walks to look at flowers and trees. That was the time when 'Nuffield Science' (getting children to do their own experiments and learn from these) was becoming popular, but it passed me by until secondary school. I did know about evolution from a fairly early age, but I think this came from my parents and my being interested in dinosaurs, rather than school.

[undeterred]

5. Well, I think they should learn to read first, but that's just me.

[Lost-in-FL]

6. I know kids that are taught to read at 4.

Evolution, if you really think about it, is very simple. Misinformation makes it more difficult than what it is.

[LTX]

40. I disagree that evolution "is very simple."

In fact, I would suggest that much of the misinformation about evolution is the very product of simplistic explanations and their consequent use straw-men in arguments from the creationist camp. An understanding of evolution requires some predicate understandings of geological time (not particularly easy for 5 year olds), the extent of biological diversity, the roles of population isolation and ecological niches, the biological building blocks underlying organic life forms, and the rudiments of cladistics. Otherwise, you have the "dog morphing into a cat" hogwash that creationists spout incessantly.

I'm just not sure how evolution can be usefully or cogently taught to 5 year olds. Perhaps a teacher with the skills to convey the concepts in a meaningfully chronological way will come up with a lesson plan to do so, but I fear that reducing the overall theory to a 5-year-old-digestible format will just set kids up as suckers for creationist propaganda.

[Lost-in-FL]

61. You are talking as if they will be forced to read Darwin's Origins

There is plenty of resources for that age that teaches evolution in a very simple way. For instance, the education can concentrate on destroying for once the very dangerous myth that evolution is about the "survival of the fittest" or that "the strongest survives". Darwin never said such a thing but it has stuck to him due to misinformation. The fact that even science teachers believes this crap shows that an effort to teach evolution is needed. Something as simple as "survival of the fittest" is justifying the doctrine of Social Darwinism and even Sexism. It is what teaches kids that they can exploit other kids because in the end "the strongest survives". Spencer, not Darwin is responsible for the term "survival of the fittest" which it is not always the case in nature.

For instance, sometimes being strong and big (making the subject slower and easy to spot) is disadvantageous in certain situations and those smaller and weaker organisms (but much faster, harder to see) have a better chance of survival than the stronger organism. There, a good example of evolution at work that also teaches that being weak is not always a bad thing after all.

[personman]

89. "survival of the fittest"

I'll be the first to say I'm not well versed in biology as far as formal education, but a number of things strike me about your post.

For instance, the education can concentrate on destroying for once the very dangerous myth that evolution is about the "survival of the fittest" or that "the strongest survives".

I personally don't think "survival of the fittest" is any more a myth than evolution itself. Two things to consider:

1.) Nature is a harsh mistress. Anyone who watches a nature show can tell you.

2.) Fitness in the natural-selection sense does not mean what you seem to think it means, particularly when comparing different species.

For gorillas, size and strength may get you to the top of the ranks, and ensure you mate. But then cockroaches are vastly more successful biologically speaking than humans or apes.

Cockroaches are extremely "fit" in the evolutionary biological sense.

Though I think there is truth in the "survival of the fittest" phrase, I'm also reminded of Peter Kropotkin's "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution." I've not actually read it, but the premise is well stated in the title. He makes the case that sometimes cooperation helps animals to be "fit."

I think there is truth to both approaches "individual survival" or "cooperation."

The fact that even science teachers believes this crap shows that an effort to teach evolution is needed.

Please biologists correct me if I'm wrong. I think the answer is obvious in that biological fitness plays a roll in whether a creature survives to mate or not.

Something as simple as "survival of the fittest" is justifying the doctrine of Social Darwinism and even Sexism.

I do not think that the fact that survival of the fittest rolls in nature means that it is a suitable policy for a supposedly advanced, civilized society. I disagree with the premise that what happens in the animal kingdom justifies anything humans do... They eat each other also. I don't think this justifies human cannibalism.

[Lost-in-FL]

92. Perhaps a few links can explain this better than I could

"Fitness in the natural-selection sense does not mean what you seem to think it means, particularly when comparing different species. <...> I think the answer is obvious in that biological fitness plays a roll in whether a creature survives to mate or not."


------That is exactly what I was trying to say. However "fitness" is not the only vehicle for evolution but it does play a part. Just because a species is suited for a particular environment, it does not necessarily mean that it will always survive. Reproduction and sheer luck (randomness) also play a huge part. If a fit organism survives but is unable to reproduce for any reason not particularly because it is infertile but because there is no opposite sex around or the poor thing dies before being able to reproduce, evolution will not ocurr. If that organism is in the wrong place at the wrong time, it won't reproduce.

By the way, there are FIVE Theories within Darwin's Origins of the Species; 1) Theory of Evolution itself as steady variation of organisms over time, 2) Theory of common ancestor or commun descent, 3) Reproduction/multiplication must happen for evolution to ocurr thus leading to new species, 4) Natural selection or the process leading to genetic differentiation through adaptation, and finally 5) Gradualism as evolution happens over long periods meaning that it is not spontaneous. This is why is important to clarify this "survival of the fittest" crap as being evolution.

Good link to check on the subject (if interested of course)....

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html

Also, if you don't care much for Richard Dawkins, there are alternatives. For instance, you can read anything written by Ernst Mayr or Steven Jay Gould. The best books so far (because they avoid completely the subject of religion) are Mayr's "One Long Argument" and his other very basic book "What Evolution is".


"I do not think that the fact that survival of the fittest rolls in nature means that it is a suitable policy for a supposedly advanced, civilized society. I disagree with the premise that what happens in the animal kingdom justifies anything humans do... They eat each other also. I don't think this justifies human cannibalism."

------Humans are not killing each other for food because there are alternatives and because other means to get food exist. Also because it is not accepted socially (yet). We do not eat each other because there is a risk of dying when you go out to kill someone for supper. Why risk life if you can go to Burger King when hungry? Nontheless, we prey on each other, at least Wall St does. Neo-Liberals for example and more specially Libertarians like to think that "survival of the strongest" is justified. They would do anything for money without thinking of the implications of what could do to families. This is because economic theory has been distorted with Social Darwinism, which is an abomination, and to them selfishness is good.


____________________________________________________________________________________________

Here it explains the "survival of the fittest" issue, better than I could ever do.



"The "fittest" can be the most loving and selfless, not the most aggressive and violent. In any case, what happens in nature does not justify people behaving in the same way

The phrase "survival of the fittest", which was coined not by Darwin but by the philosopher Herbert Spencer, is widely misunderstood.

For starters, there is a lot more to evolution by natural selection than just the survival of the fittest. There must also be a population of replicating entities and variations between them that affect fitness - variation that must be heritable. By itself, survival of the fittest is a dead end. Business people are especially guilty of confusing survival of the fittest with evolution.

What's more, although the phrase conjures up an image of a violent struggle for survival, in reality the word "fittest" seldom means the strongest or the most aggressive. On the contrary, it can mean anything from the best camouflaged or the most fecund to the cleverest or the most cooperative. Forget Rambo, think Einstein or Gandhi.

More at the link..." http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13671-evolution-myths-survival-of-the-fittest-justifies-everyone-for-themselves.html


Survival of the fittest? Anthropologist suggests the nicest prevail — not just the selfish

Are altruism and morality artificial outgrowths of culture, created by humans to maintain social order? Or is there, instead, a biological foundation to ethical behavior?

In other words, are we inherently good?

The prevailing view in popular and scientific literature is that humans and animals are genetically driven to compete for survival, thus making all social interaction inherently selfish. According to this line of reasoning, known as sociobiology, even seemingly unselfish acts of altruism merely represent a species' strategy to survive and preserve its genes.

But Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., a professor of anthropology in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis, argues that this is a narrow and simplistic view of evolutionary theory that fails to explain many aspects of sociality among mammals in general and primates in particular.

More at the link... http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/902.aspx

[TalkingDog]

78. Thank you. There is a physiological limit to a childs understanding

I point to their understanding of Conservation in value, liquids, mass, etc. in the Pre-Operational stage of development, which occurs between the ages of 2 and 6.

My distaste for Dawkins aside, teaching evolution is best done when they hit the "dinosaur" age... 6 thru 9. It's an easy lead in to a subject they are ready and willing to learn about.

[undeterred]

97. Its kind of like trying to talk to young children about reproduction.

If you talk to them when they are too young by using examples of birds and bees and bunnies, they are too literal or concrete in the way they think to understand what you are saying. They end up thinking the animals have something to do with where babies come from.

[LeftyMom]

7. At five my kid was reading my anthro textbook over my shoulder.

:shrug:

[LynneSin]

23. Unfortunately that is not the norm for many kids, especially here in the USA

:cry:

[undeterred]

35. I was reading easy books before kindergarten

but mostly because I had an older sister and I wanted to do whatever she did. Can't say I remember a thing about the subject matter though.

[LeftishBrit]

32. In the UK, children do start being taught to read from before 5

I think that one thing that's important to remember here is that formal instruction starts fairly early in the UK - compulsory from 5; common from 4. This is equivalent to recommending that first-graders be taught about evolution, not kindergarteners or preschoolers.

I am not sure that 5 is the best age for a *real* understanding of evolution; you have to have some time concept to really understand it; i.e. 'no, your grandfather was never a monkey, he just acted like one sometimes!' But I certainly think it should be compulsory by the end of primary school.

[Codeine]

59. That comes way before 5. nt

[malaise]

8. He' s right

Rec

[onehandle]

9. I was taught about evolution in Catholic school.

Not that early, but it was in elementary school.

[seabeyond]

12. where i grew up in az and calif and within the religious environment, it always, too.

i cannot remember anyone suggesting otherwise.

and my boys were taught this, even in their christian private in panhandle of texas, more than a decade ago. have had it thru out their schools, now public

[Atman]

10. I'm currently reading his book The God Delusion...

...for the second time. I'll think I'll send Bachmann and Perry a copy for XMas.

[Logical]

13. Maybe an audio copy would be better for them. Not sure they can read!

[hifiguy]

70. A truly marvelous book.

And Dawkins, like Carl Sagan, proves that a serious scientist can write with wit, erudition and irony. I've been an atheist for decades, though I only "came out" after reading Sam Harris' "The End of Faith" but it is Dawkins who puts down in print all of the reasons I am an atheist. His logic is impeccable, his science is elegant and clear, and his prose is marvelous.

[LetTimmySmoke]

11. I taught 9th grade bio last year.

Evolution is a hard concept. Though I think some basic stuff (like the English moths) can be taught in the early grades.

[hfojvt]

14. he thinks it is an "explanation for our existence"?

actually THE explanation? A COMPLETE explanation?

clearly he sees it as a religion.

Not that he will ever admit it.

[GoneOffShore]

15. Uh.... no - Science is not religion or a religion.

It's the explanation for our physical existence up to this point. It is not the explanation for the beginning of the universe and Dawkins never postulated that.

[hfojvt]

19. oh, it does not HAVE to be a religion - that is true

However, to those who worship it as providing THE COMPLETE explanation for EXISTENCE, it IS.

[trotsky]

33. How is it incomplete?

Write up your reasoning, provide some evidence for your theory that replaces it, and you will receive a shiny medal in Sweden!

[LTX]

38. It's principally complete within the area it covers,

(and I say principally complete because there is still a great deal to learn about, for example, the interplay between natural selection, genetic drift, biased mutation, and gene flow; mutational triggers; the mechanisms of speciation; the role of transcriptional enhancers and dormant genetic imperfections, etc.), but the area it covers is limited. There is, for example, a quite deliberate demarcation between evolutionary biology and abiogenesis. I don't think biological evolution should ever be presented as anything other than what it is, and it most certainly is not a "complete explanation for existence."

[trotsky]

41. Evolution basically starts with the first self-replicating molecule.

I'm pretty sure Dawkins, when he refers to it being a "complete explanation," is not intending for it to cover not only abiogenesis but even the origin of the universe, if you want to get ticky-tacky.

[LTX]

43. I don't think there's anything "ticky-tacky" about understanding evolution as

a discrete area of study. The very notion (which you off-handedly, though presumably inadvertently, endorsed) that evolution is "a complete explanation for existence" is persistently used by creationists as a wedge to undermine a true understanding of the science. It is the very handy starting point for the summary dismissal of evolution by creationists as just a competing religion. I think that has to be taken into account, and I think that it is too often overlooked by enthusiastic laymen and scientists who, through generalized characterizations and endorsements, ascribe to evolution explanations that it does even begin to address.

[trotsky]

44. Again, you appear to be assuming that Dawkins is stupid.

Trying to latch onto one word to score a semantic point. I think it's pretty clear that he intends his use of "complete" to mean within the context of evolution's parameters.

Unless, as I noted, you think Dawkins also believes that evolution explains the origin of the universe? Is he that dumb?

[LTX]

45. I'm not suggesting anything of the kind. All I am saying is that

caution has to be exercised, and evolution has to be properly placed in context. We're talking here about conveying a very complex idea to a 5-year-old, and I don't think casual mis-use of language is unimportant in that endeavor.

[trotsky]

47. Perhaps the interview or article from which this Dawkins quote came...

isn't intended to be a verbatim transcript of the terminology to be used in a child's introduction to evolution?

[LTX]

50. I'm sure you're right.

As I said in another post, if it is to be done successfully, it will take some skilled educators to translate into reality the teaching of evolution to 5-year-olds.

[FiveGoodMen]

82. Living things have children that are a lot like them but often a little different

If those changes come in handy, you'll see lots more of them in the future.

I think a five-year-old can understand that.

[LTX]

112. And from the 5 year old --

If that's true, why am I short?

Your turn.

[hfojvt]

67. I don't think there is anything 'ticky-tacky' about expecting people to mean

what they say.

But I look forward to using this defense when a religious person says something ridiculous. That it is ticky tacky to expect their words to mean what they would otherwise mean. Start with the a priori assumption that the writer/speaker is not stupid therefore when he/she said "complete" they really did not mean complete, but some other more limited meaning of complete.

Abiogenesis is called by creationists by the name of "chemical evolution" and I postulate that abiogensis is the real objection to the study of evolution in schools. That it is equated, in much of the public mind, with the theory of evolution.

And there does seem to be some basis for that. As the 3rd edition of Keeton/McFadden ("Elements of Biological Science") writes in 1983

"It is one of the purposes of this chapter to outline for you a theory of the origin of life now WIDELY HELD BY SCIENTISTS". Meaning if you are gonna study science, at least biological science, that you at least need to learn this theory even if you do not believe it.

Further, even if it is admitted that this theory is not proven, it still remains the only SCIENTIFIC theory for said origin and thus clearly, in the public mind, superior to all other theories, which are merely religions.

Which is, I postulate, what Dawkins wants to teach to young children - that science alone is the source of truth. ALL truth. A postulate which, illogically enough, fails by its own standard. It cannot be proven scientifically.

[trotsky]

126. ...

"I postulate that abiogensis is the real objection to the study of evolution in schools."

Then you would be dead wrong, and clearly are not informed about the Christian opposition to the teaching of evolution.

"Which is, I postulate, what Dawkins wants to teach to young children - that science alone is the source of truth."

Can you point to any other system that has provided us with verifiable truth? Please say religion - I need the laugh!

[Arugula Latte]

56. At least science looks for explanations of things based on fact

and not stories made up by recent primates on a small planet in a vast universe of billions of galaxies that has been around exponentially longer than the past 2,000 years.

[hfojvt]

60. well it may start out that way

but then later some scientists make sweeping pronouncements based on the authority of their high positions and status as "scientists" (aka priests of the religion of science, with authority not to be questioned except by those who run the gauntlet of other high priests (aka peer review)), and some people swallow them without a modicum of critical thought or doubt. Statements like, for example, "this theory provides THE COMPLETE explanation for our EXISTENCE".

I perceive that to be a statement not based on facts.

[RegieRocker]

65. You got it correct.

Not only that the scientists who disagree are chastised like scientists who believed the world to be round.
You might find this interesting.

http://biology.swau.edu/faculty/nclasses/classes/patterson.pdf

One thing is for sure, the ailment of "believe the authorities" covers a WIDE scope of people.

[LTX]

72. Creationists have had a grand time misrepresenting Colin Patterson's

words and work.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

Rather typical of the kind of fraudulent arguments repeatedly advanced by creationists -- fraudulent arguments that are, in my view, only catalyzed by overstating the scope of evolutionary science.

[RegieRocker]

93. Talk origins is more propaganda from evolutionary atheists.

Anyone with a brain easily understands what Collins was saying, it's quite clear. So you can spout all the hogwash you want, but it doesn't change the facts. Spin it until your dizzy, it makes no difference. The fast you're trying speaks volumes.

[LTX]

115. Here's your chance.

Go to talkorigins, and pick out one or two examples of "atheist propaganda.". Quote them, and explain what's "atheist" about them, and what the "propaganda" is. Have at it guy.

[RegieRocker]

132. Weak

You prove evolution first.
Still atheist propaganda. http://www.csulb.edu/~cwallis/170/athlinks.htm

[Lost-in-FL]

124. Propaganda? How could science be propaganda?

Is it propaganda because they happen to quote Dawkins? One thing you will find there is actualized information about evolution that quotes other sources beside Dawkins.

Really, there's a lot more evolutionary biologists than Dawkins quoted by Talking Origins AND MANY happen to dissagree with him. For example Ernst Mayr happen to school Dawkins a few yrs before his death related to the book The Selfish Gene. That was a big deal because Mayr is the top dog when it comes to the modern synthesis of evolution theory. Dawkins was forced to agree w Mayr and was not too happy about it of course. Mayr steers clear of religious controversy reason why he is not as known as Dawkins. Another critique of Dawkins relate to his view of "group selection". Group selection used to be heavily criticized (Dawkins is one critic) but now that theory is back on the table. Steven Jay Gould, second in rank to Mayr, also disagrees with many of Dawkins positions and he is also quoted by talking origins.

[RegieRocker]

133. I was only stating that it is a known harbor for atheists. Propaganda

because anyone that opposes them is labeled a creationist. A lie is propaganda. If person chooses to not believe in the complete evolution theory that it doesn't mean they are a creationist. It could be a person that isn't 100% sure about either evolution or creation. A fact that seems hard for both types to grasp.

[Lost-in-FL]

134. I see your point, however, one cannot pick an choose what's proven.

Evolution is not a "belief system" and it can change at anytime. I wouldn't call you a creationist for that but it makes me realize that perhaps you misunderstand the concept. Accepting the theories of evolution as stated does not make you an atheist just like an atheist going to church makes me a believer.

[LTX]

137. Actually, only here do you say

That talkorigins is a "known harbor for atheists" (whatever that means). Prevously, and on repeated occassions, you have flatly asserted that talkorgins is "atheist propoganda," a curious, sweeping assertion unsupported by any reference to example. Instead, you link to a site that lists talkorigins as both an atheist site, and a science site that is "not necessarily atheist." I have never found at talkorigins any advocacy for, or endorsement of, atheism. What the site provides in part is scientific rebuttal to creationist pseudo-science.

Creationist arguments founded on non-scientific assertion and, all too often, outright fraud are persistently fobbed off on the public and school boards alike. These are not legitimate rebuttals to the theory of evolution, and do not represent honest disagreement with the theory. They deserve, and indeed require, exposure and debunking by the scientific community.

You complain that anyone dis-agreeing with the theory of evolution is labled a creationist. But thousands of scientists challenge and publish critiques of evolutioary theory every year. They just do so using scientific methods, not creationist hogwash. Your complaint would ring more true if you cited these legitimate scientific disagreements in your posts, and did not rely upon illegitimate creationist talking points.

[RegieRocker]

146. You proved my point Collin Patterson's speech isn't creationist

Propaganda.

[backscatter712]

16. Funny, I don't see that story with the talking snake backed up with evidence...

Evolution has zillions of fossils, along with DNA, backing it up.

[_ed_]

54. If you're questioning the Darwinian Chair of Evolutionary Biology

at Oxford University, the correct way to do that would be through extensive scientific research, bolstered by peer review.

Can't wait to see what you come up with...

[Arugula Latte]

57. Oh, see, "faith" gives you a free pass on fancy book learnin'!

No need for facts or evidence. It's all so easy when you don't have to have reason! "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." -- Mark Twain.

[hfojvt]

58. what facts?

The person you are responded to argued from authority. I am supposed to tremble before the majesty of the Darwinian Chair of Evolutionary Biology at Oxford. :scared: :patriot:

However, since it was Darryl who made the statement, calling evolution "THE COMPLETE explanation for our EXISTENCE" then it is up to him to provide the proof for his statement that I am merely expressing a healthy skepticism about. Or do you think I should accept on faith whatever the high and mighty Darryl Dawkins thunders out from his chocolate throne?

Nah, I say, show me the evidence.

I cannot wait to hear the chocolate thunder.

p.s. Yes, I know his name is really King Richard, but I call him Darryl because I think he deserves to be brought down a peg or six. Plus, I am a big fan of the chocolate thunder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darryl_Dawkins

[Arugula Latte]

63. So I'm assuming you have this same contempt for the people who wrote the Bible?

Because if anything is supposed to be a complete explanation for our existence then that book o' myths certainly is.

[hfojvt]

69. not quite the same thing

becuase the one says

"Stop doing wrong, learn to do right. Seek justice. Rebuke the oppressor." Isaiah 1: 16-17

and

"Love the lord your god with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." Luke 10: 27

and

"what does the Lord require of you
but to do justly,
to love mercy,
and to walk humbly with your God?" Micah 6: 8

and the other says

those who believe in a God (other than SCIENCE) (and by extension moral rules) are delusional


One is exhorting me to be a better person. The other is insulting me. Guess which one I will poke in the eye?

[Arugula Latte]

91. And why would you put any stock in this silly book?

[hfojvt]

94. because I was taught to by the age of 5

of course I rejected it when I was 17

but I only know that when I am in it
love isn't silly
love isn't silly at all

[tkmorris]

101. I think you are completely wrong

But the segue into the Paul McCartney lyric was positively sublime. Well done!

[_ed_]

99. Nope

One is a fairy tale concocted by the Roman Empire to keep fools in line. The other is the result of painstaking research bolstered by peer review.

Don't care what you "poke in the eye."

You sound like the idiots who question the science of global climate change.

Frankly, I think that people who reject science shouldn't be able to reap the benefits of modern life and medicine. These people toil on your behalf, and you insult them by quoting fairy tales.

If you "believe" in Iron Age myths, maybe you should try Iron Age medicine.

[hfojvt]

102. the question was whether I had as much contempt for the Bible

as I do for Dawkins. Thus it was about who I poke in the eye.

I am not sure if "The God Delusion" was ever peer reviewed. Not that I put a lot of stock in such a process. I was once going to write a paper entitled "kiss noise" that would document the fact that almost every paper published in a certain journal (which rejected my own paper (full disclosure)) approvingly quoted the book written by the editor of said journal. Further that they generally twisted his key principle like a pretzel. That sometimes it went one way, and sometimes another. Sometimes it favored the "forward stampede" and other times it favored the "homecomers" (to use Schumacher's paradigm).

It was a project I never completed though. It seemed kinda mean spirited, and I doubted if it would get published. Plus, I thought the editor had written a decent book. But such is "peer review". My own OBSERVATION was that kissing butt seemed to be a pre-requisite to being published, at least in that journal.

By the way, I never rejected science. I simply rejected the worship of science, the unwarranted assertion that science is the answer to everything.

Do you really feel that "Seek justice. Rebuke the oppressor." is an Iron Age myth? and "to do justly,
to love mercy," is another one, along with the notion of humility?

[MH1]

110. doesn't it also say some stuff about it being ok to have slaves,

beat your wife and kids, that homosexuality is evil, you shouldn't cut your hair or shave, and NO piercings ever? Along with a bunch of other stuff I forgot long ago.

[_ed_]

143. And eating shellfish is a death penalty offense

along with not being a virgin on your wedding night (for women only, of course).

Iron Age ethics.

[_ed_]

98. Bullshit

It's not an argument from authority. It's the recognition that if you're going to sharpshoot scientists, you don't do that by asserting that your fairy tales are true. You do it by scientific research, bolstered by peer review. That's how science works. Y

The point about his Chair at Oxford was to point out that his research and theories have withstood both the tests of time and peer review. You are just some guy quoting a book written by people in the Iron Age.

Again, I can't wait to see where your research leads you.

[hfojvt]

100. funny I heard this same argument as a freshman in college

I was scoffing at the book "The Jupiter Effect" and my roommate scolded me that those authors had PhDs, and I didn't.

The fact that he has a degree and a position doesn't really prove anything. I've known a few to many professors and department heads as a graduate student to believe his position confers some sort of infallibility on his holiness.

I did not quote any book until my dance partners brought it up. All I did was scoff at Darryl's ridiculous chocolate thundering that he cannot begin to prove.

He made the statement. If you believe it so strongly perhaps you'd like to take a crack at proving it. I asserted no fairy tales. I asserted doubt on Dawkins statement that evolution provides THE complete explanation for our existence.

You know a scientist is supposed to say "prove it" not just uncritically accept something just because it was pronounced by some department head.

[_ed_]

104. Your reading comprehension is as bad as your

understanding of science. I said no such thing, and unless you can't read English, you would have seen that.

Look up the definition of peer review. It has nothing to do with being a department head or anything else.

Look, if you want to believe in childish Iron Age nonsense, that's your right, but I'd encourage you to try Iron Age medicine if you find Iron Age cosmology and ethics so valuable.

And, I can't believe you were ever a grad student at anything other than clown college if this is what you got out of that education.

[hfojvt]

105. your understanding of reason seems limited here

Insults do not equal proof.

Of course, you never said that either. You only demonstrated it.

So you think that seeking justice, rebuking oppressors, and loving mercy are just obsolete Iron Age ethics?

As for peer review, your proof of Dawkins glorious achievements in that regard relied upon his glorious position. Neither of which prove that he always knows what he is talking about.

[Quantess]

107. Are you drunk?

What does "seeking justice, rebuking oppressors, and loving mercy" have to do with science?

[hfojvt]

121. clearly nothing

those are rejected just as much by the worshippers of SCIENCE as civil discourse is, apparently.

[Quantess]

125. Sorry if it was an offensive question to you.

I was seriously wondering. It was a Friday night, and all...

[Warren DeMontague]

135. It's an explanation that covers our physical presence on this planet, yes.

deal with it.

[atheistprogress]

17. uderstanding that we came from cynobacteria

is fundemental to knowing where we are going as a species... into the great handkercheif as the turtle wipes its nose

[Mimosa]

108. You can't prove humans evolved from cynobacteria

Many elements accepted as a creation story, whether from scientists or theologians, cannot be proven.

Whoever, whatever caused the the galaxies, worlds and creatures to be put into motion, grow, replicate, is not known.

Theories are merely theories until a 'Creator' or some 'First Cause' reveals itself.

[Warren DeMontague]

150. humans and cyanobacteria share a common ancestor. That's for sure.

A metaphysical "first cause" isn't relevant to the scientifically proven and validated history of life on this planet. We know how "we" got here, we know how the planet got here. How the universe got here? We don't know, but to say it "must have had" a "creator" or "first cause" (which were caused by what, then?) is just punting the question. We keep looking until we have evidence and theoretical framework to explain said evidence.

[happyslug]

18. Even William Jennings Bryan had no objection to teaching evolution

When Bryan wrote his famous anti-evolution law in the early 1920s (A variation of which was the law contested in the Scoope's Monkey Trial) he restricted it to HUMAN evolution and then only bad teaching human evolution in tax payer supported public schools (Collages and other schools that did NOT receive tax payer support could teach evolution) and as a supporter of science Bryan had no problem with students being taught evolution.

We have to remember Byran and his supporters thought that teaching evolution as to Humans would lead to depravity, as in the mass slaughter of WWI (And the lack of any moral code that lead to Holocaust of WWII). That was the problem with human evolution Bryan and his supporters had, how do you teach people to act morally, when the theory of evolution emphasis NOT co-operation but cut throat competition. Thus they had no problem with teaching evolution, but objected to teaching HUMAN evolution in the public schools system, a school system they were paying taxes to support.

Modern opposition to Evolution often attack Bryan for his restricting his attacks to Human Evolution. Furthermore modern opposition of evolution dislike Bryan's comment that the Bible is a book to be taken figuratively. When Darrow introduces the bible into the case (Bryan and the Prosecution avoided introducing the bible, thus the Bible used at the trial was the one Darrow produced) and talked about the six days God made the Earth, Bryan pointed out it is clear by the language used that it could NOT be days of 24 hours, but terms be mean one thing lead to another, and then cited another section of Genesis that more clearly show the term day was being used figuratively, i.e something came first, and then something else, NOT that one thing happen on one day, then the next happened on the very next time the sun rose.

As to Darwin's books, the only one used in the court room was Bryan's. Bryan had written article on evolution for over 30 years, and not just comments why he disliked the theory but actual Critiques between him and one of the leading advocates of Evolution at that time. It has been commented that the only person in the Trial that actually understood the theory of evolution was Bryan, Darrow admitted that he was only able to read about 50 pages of the Darwin's book before he gave up (And this was a man who read Nietzsche and endorsed what Nietzsche wrote, something that came up in the Scoopes trial for Nietzsche had been used by Darrow in his defense in The Leopard and Loeb trial just the year before).

More on the Scoope's Monkey Trial:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm

Darrow questioning of Bryan. Please note is such an examination Darrow is in control of the questioning, Bryan MUST stay within the terms of the question put to him. Many people read what is said as a debate, and it is NOT, it is an questioning of an expert witness in a case where the expertise of the witness is called for. Thus Bryan is in a defensive position and Darrow is on the attack. At the actual trial it had been agree that Bryan be called ONLY if he could do the same to Darrow. The judge through out all of this expert testimony and thus Darrow never had a chance to be examined by Bryan (Through after the Trial, Darrow did agree to be questioned by Bryan in front of the Reporters who was covering the Trial, I have NEVER seen any reports of the actual questions or answers in the questioning of Darrow):
http://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/Evolution/Unit15Scopes/BryanDarrow.html

Here is a more in depth coverage, one of the reason it went so deep was that so much falsehood has creep into most people's perception of the Trial that to get to the trial you have to address those perceptions:
http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tennesse.html
Darrow pages, including the Leopard and Loeb case.
http://darrow.law.umn.edu/trials.php?tid=1

[LynneSin]

22. It should be taught but age 5?

Kids should be learning how to color in the lines and how to go a day in school without pissing in their pants.

I'd say around 2nd or 3rd grade you could introduce the dinosaurs and mention the concept how hold old the earth is (65mil+ years or something). But the actual theory and the evolution of man is probably something better saved for junior high school.

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. I was collecting 'Prehistoric Animals' cards at age 4

They came in packets of tea:

http://www.brookebondcollectables.co.uk/sets/prehistoricanimals.htm

'The 400 million year story of the animals that lived before Man'

with fairly detailed descriptions:

"This is a fairly common dinosaur in the Upper Triassic rocks of Germany, some 200 million years old. It was a saurischian or 'lizard-hipped' dinosaur belonging to the group known as prosauropods and was a relative (though not an ancestor) of the gigantic sauropods found in the Jurassic and Cretaceous (see cards 11 and 12)." etc.

I think the cards would have been part of my learning to read, and I'm sure I didn't understand all the words, even if someone else read them (hey, 'saurischian' isn't recognised by either Firefox's or DU's spell-checker); but I got the idea of hundreds of millions of years of evolution with common ancestors, even if it didn't explain natural selection (or, if it did, it might have gone over my head). And I could spell 'palaeontologist' by the time I was 7 :)

[LTX]

42. This is probably the way to do it. I'm still concerned about

"simplifying" evolution to point of rendering it just an alternative cartoon to a 5-year-old's vision of Biblical Eden, but the gradual introduction to the concepts of geological time, predecessor species, and extinction are good and crucial starting points, as you yourself experienced.

So much depends on the teacher and the curriculum, though, and in the absence of care, as I said above, there is a very real risk of setting kids up as suckers for creationist propaganda by way of over-simplification.

[Arugula Latte]

49. I started talking to my kids about it pretty early, in very simple terms.

Things like "animals and people didn't always look the way they do now. They've changed over lots and lots of years." ... Stuff like that.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

68. We started learning about dinosaurs and where they came from

and how modern animals evolved early in elementary school. I had a collection of little plastic dinosaurs when I was about 7 - this would have been in about 1955. It didn't seem too early to learn, and I remember being fascinated by the whole thing. I got interested in paleontology when I was a tiny little kid.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

74. I understood the general concept of evolution at a very early age.

Of course, not the complexities, but I did "know" that we all were somehow related. I remember reading about dinosaur extinction, and the subsequent predominance of mammals.

I think the basics should be related to five year olds.

[struggle4progress]

24. nah. make the kids look at the real world and interact with it: magnets and prisms

and rainbows and bugs and flowers and animals at the zoo and sandcastles and seashells and reading and counting and singing and painting and playing well together and frisbees and old locomotives and telegraphs and suits of armor and whatever else is out there that they can see and touch and smell and move and be interested by

let them learn to weigh and measure; let them see ice and steam and snow and rain and fog and clouds; point out that the full moon rises as the sun sets

dickie dawkins is an ideologue

[trotsky]

34. "bugs and flowers and animals at the zoo"

All of which are wonderful examples of evolution. Glad to see you support Dawkins on this, s4p.

[struggle4progress]

37. science is first about enjoying looking at the real world

[trotsky]

39. Language is first about babbling.

But by age 5 we expect considerable language skills from our children. Why can't we teach them about evolution at that age? Do you think they're not capable of understanding it? Is there some other reason you don't want to see this happen other than you don't personally like Richard Dawkins?

[struggle4progress]

90. Ira Remsen on Copper and Nitric Acid

While reading a textbook of chemistry I came upon the statement, "nitric acid acts upon copper." I was getting tired of reading such absurd stuff and I was determined to see what this meant.

Copper was more or less familiar to me, for copper cents were then in use. I had seen a bottle marked nitric acid on a table in the doctor's office where I was then "doing time." I did not know its peculiarities, but the spirit of adventure was upon me.

Having nitric acid and copper, I had only to learn what the words "act upon" meant. The statement "nitric acid acts upon copper" would be something more than mere words. All was still. In the interest of knowledge I was even willing to sacrifice one of the few copper cents then in my possession.

I put one of them on the table, opened the bottle marked nitric acid, poured some of the liquid on the copper and prepared to make an observation. But what was this wonderful thing which I beheld? The cent was already changed and it was no small change either. A green-blue liquid foamed and fumed over the cent and over the table. The air in the neighborhood of the performance became colored dark red. A great colored cloud arose.

This was disagreeable and suffocating. How should I stop this? I tried to get rid of the objectionable mess by picking it up and throwing it out of the window. I learned another fact. Nitric acid not only acts upon copper, but it acts upon fingers.

The pain led to another unpremeditated experiment. I drew my fingers across my trousers and another fact was discovered. Nitric acid acts upon trousers.

Taking everything into consideration, that was the most impressive experiment and relatively probably the most costly experiment I have ever performed ... It was a revelation to me. It resulted in a desire on my part to learn more about that remarkable kind of action.

Plainly, the only way to learn about it was to see its results, to experiment, to work in a laboratory http://www.angelo.edu/faculty/kboudrea/demos/copper_HNO3/Cu_HNO3.htm

[trotsky]

109. OK, thanks for the Google randomness.

At least I got my last question answered, clear as day.

[LTX]

48. I am somewhat inclined to agree.

I think love of science comes from a multitude of tactile experiences engendering curiosity. I also agree that Dawkins can be a bit of an ideologue (although an indisputably brilliant one). It is too often the case, it seems, that adults assume readiness for abstraction in children before children have finished just playing with the world around them.

[rug]

26. He's wrong. String theory must be taught if we are to understand ourselves.

[rucky]

27. When my daughter was 5, she made up a character called "Cave Girl"

that we turned into a mini comic book. It led to a fun discussion.

Just a suggestion for anyone looking for a way to teach a 5 y.o. about evolution.

[LeftishBrit]

28. British primary schools are already required to teach about evolution, though the age is not

specified IIRC.

I don't know how much 5-year-olds would understand about the finer principles of evolution, but certainly they all seem to know a lot about dinosaurs.

[quaker bill]

30. I taught both my kids this at some point

and they are both really bright, but I think they were a bit older than 5 at the time, more like 7 or so. I did take my son to organic chemistry lectures at 5. I did not have much choice in the matter as he lived with me each summer and I needed to take the class to graduate on time. He liked it alot and took notes, at least of the structural diagrams.

I also lectured him on the fine points of quantum mechanics when he was 7 during hour long drives to pick him up for the weekends he was staying with me. He now has a PhD in materials science, so it is not a bad idea to start young. Five might be a bit young, depending on the kid, but young is good.

[hifiguy]

36. I could read at a bit past 3

and was a dinosaur enthusiast by 6. I knew then that dinosaurs lived tens of millions of years ago even if I couldn't quite get my head around such a large number at that age.

Bravo to Dawkins, one of my intellectual heroes!

[hedgehog]

46. When does the study of evolution move from science to a pseudo-religion of its own?

[hifiguy]

51. Things that are evidence-based and subject to

self-correction as new evidence is discovered by their very nature cannot become "pseudo-religious." The scientific method does not allow for the kind of final closure that forbids further inquiry. If it did, it would not be the scientific method, and it is that which has explained everything that is worth knowing about the physical world.

[hedgehog]

52. What i meant by calling it pseudo-religious wasn't the theory of

evolution itself, but the fact that Dawkins seems to be using it to "prove" that religious faith is a fantasy. There are many people out here who turn to science to explain the "how?" and to religion to explain the "why?".

[hifiguy]

53. Dawkins deals with that extensively,

and far better than I could ever paraphrase, in "The God Delusion." Evolution explains how life on this planet evolved from the simplest forms to modern forms, and does so in its entirety. His point is that once the creation and evolution of life is explained by testable hypotheses and vast amounts of evidence, that a supernatural creator is superfluous and that belief in one clouds the mind with fantasy. With that I agree.

[hedgehog]

62. If "God" could be explained by science, then it would't be "God".

Get beyond the cliche of the old man in the clouds, and either you believe in something more than the cosmos, or you don't. For me, either it's "turtles all the way down" or else you run up against God.

[hifiguy]

73. Five hundred years ago

people said the same thing about what we now know to be communicable (and preventible) diseases - that it couldn't be explained save by reference to a god, and that disease was punishment from god. Same goes for thunderstorms, tornadoes and hurricanes and all other natural disasters.

There is nothing that the scientific method will not be able to explain, given enough time and a workable methodology.

[hedgehog]

75. Science is for reality, religion for what is beyond reality.

For example, science can explain exactly why a starving child in Somalia dies. Religion allows us to demand an explanation of why the child had to die, to assign an explanation, to assign a meaning or to accept the fact as our particular view of God directs us.

[hifiguy]

77. There is nothing beyond reality:

that is to say energy and matter. For that is all there is in the universe.

[LTX]

79. There is nothing beyond reality -- except, of course, for the conundrum underlying conscious

perception of reality and its accompanying extrapolative abstractions. We not only perceive, we employ purely abstract mechanisms to analyze, predict, and virtually model reality from those perceptions (and we don't know, frankly, the true extent to which other sentient life does the same). Mathematics as an abstract tool, for example, certainly defies definition as "energy and matter." Likewise the conceptual results of literature, music and art.

[FiveGoodMen]

84. "Mathematics as an abstract tool" is just something that matter does

when it gets complicated enough.

[LTX]

87. On my blackberry just now, so I can't say much,

But that's pretty facile. Mathematics applies irrespective of "complication," and it exists as an abstract conceptual construct (whether you think it "discovered" or "invented") independent of energy and matter. While it is indisputably a product of both, it has the characteristics of neither.

[FiveGoodMen]

88. The 'complication' is US.

WE get complicated enough to invent or discover (doesn't matter) mathematics based on what we see going on around us.

An abstract concept requires us as well. Concepts are held in the mind, which is what the (complicated) brain does.

The fact that certain regularities in the universe can be noted, modeled, and theorized about is fascinating but what does it prove except that the universe has things it CAN do and things it CANNOT do and they follow regular patterns?

[LTX]

111. It seems to me

That you are merely begging the question of what mathematics is. The original proposition was that there is nothing beyond reality, with a definition of reality as energy and matter (we'll set aside the missing element of time in this definition for now).

You seem to concede the intangible nature of mathematics, but dimiss it as proving nothing other than what energy and matter can and cannot do, and that energy and matter follow "regular patterns" (we'll also set aside the fact that mathematics has rather inconviently undermined your persisting notion of Newtonian "reglarity"). But of what use to energy and matter is an apparently emergent, intangible property that can explain what energy and matter cannot do? In short, what exactly is mathematics? Having the characteristics of neither energy nor matter, it can nevertheless not only explain, predict, and model what energy and matter are, it can virtually fabricate what they are not.

Think of it another way -- who is Madame Bovary? Or Ishmael? Or Bilbo Baggins? They are not "real," and they virtually model what is not. They are neither energy nor matter. But they indisputably exist as intangible reference points within consciousness. Not only who, but what are they?

[hedgehog]

117. I think it is foolish to attempt to prove that "G*d exists". Your post reminds me

that we can choose to believe or not to believe, and that to believe is an invitation to contemplating, knowing that one can describe in part but never resolve the mystery.

[LTX]

130. Just in passing,

You are a very interesting person. I wish there were more conversants like you here.

[FiveGoodMen]

83. So why did the child have to die?

[hedgehog]

85. You tell me.

[FiveGoodMen]

86. The trouble is that most religious explanations blame the victim

[hedgehog]

116. "Most" is not "all".

I didn't say that religions are correct or complete in their understandings or teachings.

[Lucian]

103. ...

:eyes:

[Shagbark Hickory]

55. Lets also teach contraception.

Just sayin.
Fundamental principal of biology 'n all that

[Lost-in-FL]

64. The myth of the "survival of the fittest" must die in order to have a better society.

Teaching evolution at an early age is a great way to tackle myths like "the strongest survives" that currently corrupts society. Debunking this myth even before a child goes to school will teach kids to treat each other humanly. Darwin never said a word about "survival of the fittest" and this is totally wrong. The myth has been responsible for the lack of empathy for the poor in our society and giving Wall St a free ticket to take care only of their own. This is why I believe children should be taught early about evolution.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

66. I was taught evolution in elementary school.

And that was way back in the '50s. And I don't ever recall the slightest bit of controversy about it, ever. Later on we watched the movie "Inherit the Wind," and discussed how bizarre it was that a teacher couldn't teach evolution. This was decades ago, and it just pains me that our society has de-evolved so far into a bunch of superstitious morons.

[RebelOne]

95. Me too. I went to elementary school in the '50s also.

And I don't remember even a hint of religion being taught, such as Adam and Eve and all those other myths,

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

96. That stuff turned up in Sunday School.

There didn't seem to me to be a conflict between the two - but then, we didn't go to a fundie church.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

71. K&R n/t

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

76. Evolution is FACT

When people dismiss it as simply a theory, they are showing their ignorance. The term "theory" has a different meaning in scientific contexts. It refers to a proposition that has been confirmed by mounds of scientific evidence.

People who believe that the Earth was created only 4000 years ago and that humans rode dinosaurs should be barred from getting anywhere near public school children. If you want your children to learn that stuff, put them in a parochial school.

[spin]

80. It's still an evolving theory ...

Note: I am not dismissing evolution, just stating that evolutionary change can occur much more rapidly than previously believed.

Evolution More Rapid Than Darwin Thought
ScienceDaily (Mar. 22, 2010)

— Evolution can proceed much more rapidly than has long been thought. This is shown by Magnus Karlsson, a doctoral candidate at Linnaeus University in Kalmar, in his dissertation about the impact of genetics and the environment on the color patterns of pygmy grasshoppers.

It has been the accepted view among evolutionary biologists since Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859 that measurable evolutionary changes occur slowly, often taking hundreds of generations. This view may now be about to change.

Pygmy grasshoppers exist in many different color variants and in many types of environment. Through a series of experiments and studies in nature, Magnus Karlsson discovered that the distribution between the color variants of pygmy grasshoppers differs across different environments. In recently burnt over areas, a very high proportion of the grasshoppers are black. In unburnt areas, on the other hand, the black variant is unusual. What's more, the proportion of black grasshoppers changes very rapidly between generations in the burnt areas, whereas the proportion in unburnt areas remains the same over the same period of time.

Magnus Karlsson presents data that show that the pygmy grasshoppers' color changes by natural selection. He believes that the primary cause of these changes is birds and other animals that hunt using their vision. The black grasshoppers are simply less visible against the burnt background, so they survive more often. But as the environment changes and becomes more complex, the advantage of being dark diminishes, and other color variants can once again increase in number.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/be11.shtml

Lizard experiment suggests rapid evolution
Jeff Poling

An experiment with lizards in the Caribbean has demonstrated that evolution moves in predictable ways and can occur so rapidly that changes emerge in as little as a decade.

The experiment bears on two theories of evolution, that of punctuated equilibrium and that of gradualism. Gradualism states that evolution is a relatively slow, constant process, producing changes over millions of years. Punctuated equilibrium states that environmental constraints hold species remain unchanged for millions of years, which then undergo rapid evolution when environmental changes demand it. The results of the experiment suggest that there are no constraints, and no difference between gradual and rapid evolution.

The experiment involved the introduction of one species of lizard to fourteen small, lizard-free Caribbean island near the Exumas in the Bahamas. The lizards were left for fourteen years. The original intent of the experiment was to study extinction. The experiment, started by Thomas Schoener of the University of California at Davis, would have provided scientists with important information as they observed the extinction of the introduced lizards. Unfortunately, the lizards adapted to their new environments, and the focus of the experiment changed to study this rapid evolution.
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/evol/lizard.html

Anyone who reads and studies the Bible should be able to figure out that it is a book filled with interesting stories and lessons. They also should realize that while it MAY be inspired by God is not his literal word.

For example there are two stories of creation in Genesis.

Genesis creation narrative

The Genesis creation narrative is the biblical account of the creation of the world contained in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible. As a sacred narrative of the primeval history of the world (chapters 1–11),<1> it is part of the biblical canons of Judaism and Christianity.<2> It is a creation myth with similarities to several ancient Mesopotamian creation myths, while differing in its monotheistic outlook.<3><4><5>

Chapter one describes the creation of the world by Elohim (God), by means of divine fiat in six days and the designation of the seventh day as Sabbath, a holy (set apart) day of rest. Man and woman are created to be God's regents over his creation. Chapter two tells of YHWH-God creating the first man whom he forms from clay (or dust) and into whom he "breathes" the "breath of life". The first woman is formed from the side of the first man. God plants a garden "east of Eden" into which he places the first couple. Chapter two ends with a statement concerning why men and women are given into marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative

There are also two different stories of Noah's ark and the number of animals taken on the voyage differ.

[BNJMN]

141. Which side encourages you to ask questions and prove them wrong?

Thank you, Science!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

81. It should be taught when kids are able to understand the concept.

Probably middle school, maybe late elementary school for advanced level students. Definitely too much for a 5 year old to digest. Today, I told my 3 year old daughter that a lizard was a reptile, and she asked what a reptile was. And it was nearly impossible to explain to her at that age. It's not going to be much easier at age 5.

Of course for all the love he gets, Richard Dawkins rarely makes practical sense to me, so take that as it is.

[msanthrope]

147. My child understood evolution at age 5.

It is amazing what children, unclouded by superstition, will understand.

[Harmony Blue]

113. Teaching evolution to elementary school kids is a bad idea

Middle school/junior high is the norm in the States, but it is dabbled with, and a little more at the high school level. Deep study of gradualism and punctualism comes at the collegiate level, which I find is appropriate given how complex of a subject matter evolution is. Furthermore evolution is often misunderstood as it is a theory that has nothing to do with the origin of life.

[Warren DeMontague]

154. Correct. The origin of life is better explained through chemistry.

Evolution only deals with how it developed once the chemical patterns started replicating.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

114. There are many creeds beyond Christian

Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Animists, Pagans, etc.

They too may not be open to evolution or they may feel their moral underpinnings matter more than how one scores on a science test. And in the end I suppose I'd rather have a kind and generous ignoramus for a neighbor than a highly-educated brute.

Let people have freedom of conscience, unless we demand the entire world be re-educated to just to make us more comfortable.

[Motown_Johnny]

118. Can We See... EVOLUTION?!?!

[BNJMN]

138. Yes, you can see...EVOLUTION.

Fruit flies and what not. It's right there.
Evolution. Bam! All up in your face.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pink-o]

129. What's wrong with telling kids the truth? Which is: no one freakin' KNOWS.

Why do we feel we have to give our kids anything other than a factual answer when they start asking where did we come from, how did we get here, and what the hell is our purpose for being here? Why can't we just tell them that there are all sorts of ideas, but since there's no proof of any of them, we can't tell them one thing or another. We always tell them wait till you're older about so many things, why not just let them know when they're older they will come to their own conclusions and to remember to respect others who disagree with them? I don't think kids are too young or incapable of dealing with unanswered questions--especially if we let them know that they can be moral, loving, kind, empathetic and compassionate to their fellow human: no matter if he crawled outta the primordial ooze or was put here by design from a creator.

No matter how we got here, we're here now, so let's enjoy this gift of life. Let's love to our utmost, strive for happiness, give our hearts to each other and just have fun. Kids will always understand that philosophy.

[BNJMN]

140. Because the truth is, some people know. Not you, apparently. But others.

There's proof as well.

[pink-o]

142. Okay, Provocative One! So glad you're so secure in your delusion...er, sorry knowledge n/t

[pink-o]

144. re-read some of your posts on this thread. Looks like we're on the same side.

Since you're relatively new here, I'll give you a pass for the first reply. Yes, I'm pretty sure there's no creator, because the science bears it out that every species here evolved to survive with the habitat. But to say you know for sure is impossible, no matter what you see in front of you because guess what? We don't have the information to make a proper conclusion. Why is it so hard to just walk away from this, admit the question is unanswerable, quit tying ourselves into knots, quit killing others who disagree with us, and do what we're meant to do??? Which is: live life to its fullest, find our bliss and follow it?

We're such creatures of anxiety and fear. Fear evolved to keep us alive, but if we let it take over, it's gonna take us down and everything else in its wake. I think we're most afraid that we have no purpose or that we'll never know what brought us here. Personally, I'm fine with that. I don't believe that I'm so bloody special, that I'm either the image of a perfect creator, nor the top of the food chain. If the eternal question ever does get answered at any time in my existence, that'll be great. If not, nothing changes.

Believers in God judge me all the time. I expect more from Atheists, who've questioned the accepted tenets and proven they're critical thinkers. Do us all a favor, okay?

[yurbud]

145. knowing about the crawl out the primordial ooze is crucial to effective compassion

if the person you have compassion on has a currently incurable disease (like a quickly evolving virus), not being familiar with a foundational idea of modern biology could cripple your efforts to help that person.

[Posteritatis]

148. Evolution's one of the most thoroughly confirmed bits of scientific knowledge out there.

"I don't understand it" does not mean "it is not known."

[Warren DeMontague]

149. Yeah. Right. You could be a head in a jar, dreaming all this. Who needs "science"?

Or, you could make a reasonable fact-based conjecture based upon the very large volume of consistent physical evidence which all consistently backs up ONE explanation for our presence here, i.e. we evolved along with all other life on this planet over the past few billion years.

It's a fucking FACT. We DO know.

[Warren DeMontague]

136. he's right.

good for him.

[BNJMN]

139. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you ...

...think voting Republican is a good idea.

[Andy B.]

151. Teaching ANY academic subject at 5 is daft!

Dawkins' attitude to Neo-Darwinism is as fundamentalist in nature as that of any so-called religious "fundamentalist, and it is interesting to note that Dawkins has attacked religion as being a meme, or set of memes, apparently blissfully unaware that the concept of memes is itself a meme. JAT.

Anyway, why is Dawkins' suggestion daft?

Because it is neither necessary nor beneficial to anyone, least of all the kids on whom Dawkins wishes to impose his programme of early indoctrination.

Like the educational establishments in the US and the UK, Dawkins seems totally oblivious to one simple fact - that whilst these are two of the richest, supposedly advanced countries in the world, their kids do not come top of the world ratings for educational achievement.

In fact, countries which start kids out with simple lessons and practice in socialisation until age 7, or thereabouts, fare far better in the long run. For whilst their kids are naturally way behind in academic subjects at age 7, by age 9 (comparing average performance) they have caught up, and over the next 2-3 years they have comfortably overtaken the kids that were forced into academic learning from day one.
At the same time, the kids now lagging behind don't even have the benefit of well-developed social skills.

Now Dawkins could get that information just as easily as me, or anyone else. So why does he ignore it?

Because, as I said at the start, Dawkins is - in my opinion - first and foremost a kind of religious zealot.
He wants children brainwashed to believe in his materialist creed (see below) as early as possible - regardless of the consequences for the children. IIRC, at the opening part of his series The Enemies of Reason he openly bemoaned the fact that scientists today are not treated with the kind of respect and awe that was afforded to religious leaders before the dawn of The Enlightenment.
Moreover, as Professor Brian Goodwin has pointed out, Dawkins has described his idea of evolution as near as damn it in terms that look mighty like orthodox Christianity with only God left out (see: http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html).

Of course Dawkins isn't alone in his views, though like religious fundamentalists, you never find two people who think exactly alike. When it comes to battling against religion, quite a few evolutionist seem to lose the plot, big time, as in this very public pronouncement from the Marxist geneticist Richard Lewontin in The New York Review of Books (January 9, 1997):

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

An interesting comment, given how frequently people of a religious persuasion are accused of being close minded and not open to rational argument.

(Afterword: No, I don't agree with religious indoctrination either. Though I suspect that in practice kids will have absorbed a basic attitude towards religious ideas long before they get to school.)

[sarcasmo]

152. Right on.

[Skip Intro]

155. 5 year old kids should be allowed to be young kids without any of this shit. nt