Turkey Will Stop Teaching Evolution in Secondary Schools

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes Piltdown man faced skepticism since it was presented... by practically everyone on the planet, except academic scientific consensus, which swallowed it hook line and sinker, and used it as a 'scientific' foundation of human evolution for decades.

That is wrong. Academia didn't swallow it hook line and sinker, and piltdown man faced skepticism and scrutiny from academics and scientists alike (the two terms are not interchangeable or synonymous).

As above, whether or not a theory is labelled 'scientific' by any particular group, at any particular time or place, is an entirely subjective matter, subject to change according to the vagaries of academic fashion, and historically, not a particularly reliable measure of whether or not something is actually true.

That is wrong. What is science isn't subjective. Either it meets the criteria under the scientific method, or it doesn't.
And the wonderful thing about science is it does have a open door policy when it comes to better findings, better evidence, and better positions. Of course science is updated and "changed." 'Tis for the better. The Bible, however, has not been updated and still says there are points high enough to see the entire world and that pi is equal to 3, and still includes that bit about having dove's blood slung all over the place when someone is cured of leprosy.

In fact the opposite argument can be made; there is no need for anyone to yell insistently about how 'scientific' photosynthesis is for example, because it is actually unambiguously, demonstrably true. Science: the label, is used more often than not, where it is required in leui of science: the method.

Photosynthesis is science because it is a part of biology, and it explains how plants use sun light to power their exchange of carbon dioxide for oxygen. And everybody knows oxygen is combustible, but the theory that it is is science, as this was once not realized.

But I am interested in your answer, what is your understanding of the scientific method, and in what way do you feel evolution adheres to it?

The scientific method is a systematic approach to gathering data in regards to an observed phenomena, as well as publishing your findings to have them peer reviewed, which is a very important part of science. Evolution fits in because it is supported by observations from biology, paleontology, anthropology, psychology, and chemistry. Evolution and Darwin made predictions, and we are finding these predictions to be true.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes Piltdown man faced skepticism since it was presented... by practically everyone on the planet, except academic scientific consensus, which swallowed it hook line and sinker, and used it as a 'scientific' foundation of human evolution for decades.

Here's another thing no creationist will answer.......Piltdown man was a hoax, therefore __________?

 

[Ponder This]

Um, not really. For starters, it doesn't mention a young earth. Secondly, it doesn't say anything about the overall number of believers, it just charts the difference in percentage among theistic groups of who accepts evolution.

Well.... 10,000 years anyways... whatever that means.

No, it doesn't. The percentages show that people who have a college-level or above education are more than half as likely to accept theistic creationism, and are more than four times more likely to accept non-theistic evolution.

3+57 = 60
19+46 = 65
16+49 = 65
27+27 = 52
The theistic numbers don't change much with more education.
10+30 = 40
27+8 = 35
33+2 = 35
41+7 = 48
Most of the increase in atheist numbers looks like it comes from the silent fourth option (that is people who didn't declare a God option).

I point you towards the top of the table. Notice how attendance at church correlates directly with acceptance of theistic propositions and rejection of evolution. That is where the pandering really lies.

There appears to be a correlation between Church attendance and the acceptance of the God options, but it doesn't indicate if people attend Church because they believe or believe because they attend Church... If we wanted to assess the indoctrination factor, we would need to know if there was an increase in God belief as people attended Church for longer periods of time. The figures as given don't distinguish between someone who just started attending Church regularly vs people who have been attending Church regularly for a while.

Well, according to the figures it actually did. Not that it matters - my point was never that more educated people tend to be less likely to believe in God - my point was that Threepwood was misrepresenting the figures, and the figures show that if you're more educated you're more likely to accept evolution, whereas the more religious you are the more likely you are to reject it.

I agree that the poll shows that the more educated you are, the more likely you are to accept Evolution. The poll also appears to show a significant number of religious people are willing to accept Evolution when they become more educated. But even in the Church attendance percentages, there is a significant percentage of religious people who accept Evolution. I agree the percentages indicate some rejection of evolution among the religious, but it's not as significant as the acceptance of Evolution by the non-religious. this is the point I'm making about the poll.

That is obviously not true. The graph only shows the people who answered with one of the three propositions and leaves 8% unaccounted for on the graph for people who presumably did not answer.

If you want to look at the top graph, then you see the trend over time rather than the trend over education. In that case, it isn't necessarily education that's bringing in the God has no part people. It could be due to a general decline in religion. We don't know from the poll.

Baseless postulation.

Examine the poll.

My point was never about belief in God - it was purely about how Threepwood was being dishonest and how the figures do not support his assertions.

You are right. According to the poll, Threepwood was wrong. He should've said, "atheistic evolution" instead of "Darwinian evolution".

What is "Darwinian evolution" anyway? Didn't Darwin write "It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist"? and "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind"? Letter from Charles Darwin to John Fordyce 7 May 1879

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What is "Darwinian evolution" anyway?

Should we discover life on other planets, and learn about how life evolved on those planets, I suspect one day we may use the term Darwinian Evolution to describe the path and hows and whys of evolution here on Earth. Assuming, that is, that other planets would provide for such a radically different enough environment to have a radical effect on the direction and on going processes and results of evolution. We may just find other apes on other planets that are much like us.

 

[Valjean]

It was declared to be genuine 'without question' and formed the basis of human evolution exhibits in museums all over the world for nearly half a century- hardly 'shelved'!!

It was controversial from the outset, some of its features made no sense, the dentition was declared "impossible" by one researcher.

Science is great, my problem is not with science, but those who delay and derail it's progress based on preferred outcomes

Those would be the religious, then....
Scientists are probably even more annoyed than you when this happens.

Science follows the evidence, and even when it starts down the wrong path, it's self correcting. That's the difference between religion and science. Science is based on evidence. Science tries to disprove its own hypotheses, it tests them and invites other scientists to find flaws in them. It's always open to new evidence and interpretations. It's findings are always provisional.
Religion is based on faith, ie: unsupported belief. Religion never challenges its beliefs and resists challenges by others. It's open to new evidence only when it confirms doctrine, and its doctrine is never provisional, it's writ in stone.

it's demonstrable, repeatable, observable, measurable-

"Well few things are more subjective than evidence.."

And that's not proof . The mechanisms described in the ToE are also demonstrable, repeatable, observable and measurable.

You missed my point. I was speaking rhetorically, using the same approach you use toward the ToE. Photosynthesis is a theory -- and a fact -- but it's not "proven."
You do not seem know what proof is, in the scientific sense.

A single cell morphing itself into a human being through millions of lucky accidents- aint

And here you demonstrate that, despite hundreds of posts on this subject, you still don't get it.

Well few things are more subjective than evidence..

Evidence is as objective as we're likely to get. Without evidence all we'd have would be faith.

If we dig into the past and see shared traits, some sudden appearances, gaps, jumps, some stasis and dead ends.. but a general trend towards more diversity and sophistication.. what does this 'evidence' suggest, let alone prove to you?

It certainly does not suggest magical intervention by an undetectable, invisible entity. That's just pure, unsupported fantasy.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well.... 10,000 years anyways... whatever that means.

Again, no time frame is mentioned.

3+57 = 60
19+46 = 65
16+49 = 65
27+27 = 52
The theistic numbers don't change much with more education.

I'm not talking about the overall number of theists, I'm talking about the overall percentage of people who accept theistic creationism vs the overall percentage of people who accept an atheistic view of evolution. What the chart shows is that having a higher educational level makes you more likely not to be a theistic creationist and more likely to be an atheist.

10+30 = 40
27+8 = 35
33+2 = 35
41+7 = 48
Most of the increase in atheist numbers looks like it comes from the silent fourth option (that is people who didn't declare a God option).

What are you talking about? Those views aren't accounted for on the table and the questionnaire makes no assumption about the beliefs of people who didn't answer positively to one of the three categories.

If you want to look at the top graph, then you see the trend over time rather than the trend over education. In that case, it isn't necessarily education that's bringing in the God has no part people. It could be due to a general decline in religion. We don't know from the poll.

That doesn't address what I wrote. You claimed that the "increase in those who select that God had no part comes from the people who chose not to answer with one of the three options available". That is obviously not true, since the poll only includes those who gave that specific answer - not people who didn't give one of the three answers in the graph. You just made that up.

Examine the poll.

The poll says absolutely nothing about the motivation of the people questioned - your assertion is just speculation.

You are right. According to the poll, Threepwood was wrong. He should've said, "atheistic evolution" instead of "Darwinian evolution".

I agree.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It was controversial from the outset,

Far more so among free thinking people, far less so among peer pressure reviewed academics

And here you demonstrate that, despite hundreds of posts on this subject, you still don't get it.

All the changes in design from single cell to human being, according to the theory, are driven by a random process, you would need to argue this with mainstream academia if you disagree.

It certainly does not suggest magical intervention by an undetectable, invisible entity." That's just pure, unsupported fantasy.

you mean multiverses? I don't think so either. Then what does that physical evidence prove to you?

 

[Valjean]

Far more so among free thinking people, far less so among peer pressure reviewed academics

ROFL -- "Peer pressure reviewed academics"

You really are obsessed with this idea that there's some vast atheist-scientific conspiracy to hoodwink the world, aren't you?

All the changes in design from single cell to human being, according to the theory, are driven by a random process, you would need to argue this with mainstream academia if you disagree.

How obtuse can you be? It's been explained to you a hundred times that evolution isn't a random process. Natural selection selects. Can you really not grasp this, or are you just trolling?

you mean multiverses? I don't think so either. Then what does that physical evidence prove to you?

Multiverses?! Where did you come up with that? This whole debate really is going right over your head.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It may make for one very interesting ethnography to put a bunch of Conservative Creationists in a university. Get them enrolled in classed, joined in some clubs, and document their experience. Will they cling to false preconceived notions, or will they learn what things like academia and science are and how the work?
And, because I need money, I suppose I should change "enthnography" to "reality TV show." Whatever. Just as long as they see and understand that academia isn't the dogmatic, theist bashing, god hating mongrels they think it is.

 

[gnostic]

That is wrong. What is science isn't subjective. Either it meets the criteria under the scientific method, or it doesn't.

I think Guy is confusing science with theoretical science.

(A) Science used and relied on evidences, not proofs.
(B) Theoretical science relied on proofs, not evidences.​

Evolution falls under the A category.

Guy, like all other creationists, don't understand basic science concepts, such as "scientific theory", falsification, scientific method, empirical or verifiable evidences, etc.