Re: [Phys-l] Another alternative theory horror

[Steve Clark <sclarkphd@mindspring.com>]

 I don't post on this list often because it is quite likely that  
responses will be condescending and unhelpful. Why end your post with  
"Try it sometime"?

I asked a question which wasn't answered - "because it works so well"  
didn't answer my question. And, while evolution seems like a simple  
theory, the mechanism that leads to new species is anything but  
simple. I struggle with many of the explanations that I hear. How did  
amphibians become reptiles. A lot of changing has to happen.

We don't teach evolution because there is a mountain of evidence that  
makes sense in terms of evolution and nothing else. We teach it  
because it's on "the test". When it comes to what high school students  
need to know to be successful in life, evolution isnot on of those  
things that they absolutely must know. Understanding natural selection  
will not make them better airplane mechanics or wall street analysts.  
It might make them better biologists, but probably not better engineers.


S. Clark


On Feb 9, 2008, at 10:32 PM, John Denker wrote:

> On 02/09/2008 08:09 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
>
> > Why is evolution considered the central tenet of biology?
>
> Because it works well.
>
> > I'm not a
> > biologist (although I married one), but it looks to me like evolution
> > has become a philosophy and everything in biology is explained with
> > the assumption that evolution is true. And evolution is then  
> > supported
> > by using the ideas that were explained by evolution.     [1]
>
> That is quite a remarkable claim.  As James Randi says,
> extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  Do
> you have any evidence at all in support of claim [1]?
> If so, let's see it.
>
> Otherwise I will continue to classify claim [1] as vague,
> ill-informed speculation.
>
> In fact the assumptions that support evolution are few, far
> fewer than the number of otherwise-unexplainable observations
> that are well explained by evolution.  This has been true at
> all times since 1859, and is even more spectacularly true
> today, because of all the new data that has accumulated in
> recent years.
>
> > I think we could teach every aspect of high school biology in the
> > curriculum without mentioning evolution and have our students know  
> > the
> > same concepts as we do now with evolution (of course, with the
> > exception of evolution, itself). If that's true (it may not be), then
> > why is evolution a fundamental principle?
>
> 1) It's not true.
>
> 2) We teach evolution because there is mountain upon mountain of
> observed biological facts that make sense in terms of evolution
> and not otherwise.
>
> =======
>
> There is a principle in science (and in life generally) that
> says "you can't beat something with nothing".  If you have a
> theory that explains the observations better than evolution
> does, let's see the theory.  Let's subject the new theory to
> the tests that evolution has passed again and again, all day
> every day.
>
> When a simple theory explains a vast range of complex observed
> facts, it is not so easy to come up with a viable alternative
> theory.  Try it sometime.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l