| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
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
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l