Turkey Will Stop Teaching Evolution in Secondary Schools

[gnostic]

Doctors haven't seen the need to know about homo rhodesiensis to treat homo sapiens.

Why would a medical doctor need to know anything about Homo rhodesiensis?

Doctors only need to treat patients, now and in the future. And they would need medical records of past successful and unsuccessful treatments of the past 100 years or so, and not of of couple of hundreds of thousand of years.

So of course, the medical professionals wouldn't need to know anything about medical history of the Homo rhodesiensis.

Homo rhodesiensis and human evolution are used in archaeology, anthropology and palaentology. These are specialised fields, that most medical doctors wouldn't need to know.

To be fair, Evolution doesn't get a lot of attention in Medical Science. There is a push for Evolution to receive more attention in Medical Science, but the reason it isn't taught that much is that it's largely irrelevant to Medical Science. Doctors haven't seen the need to know about homo rhodesiensis to treat homo sapiens.

The application for evolution in medicine is in the viral and bacterial diseases and in vaccine and antibiotic researches.

The interests in evolution, from a medical standpoint, relates to mutation of viruses and bacteria, eg how viruses mutate into new strains, to make itself immune to current antibiotic or vaccine, and the probability of vaccine being useful in combating viral diseases.

You are look at evolution, but in the wrong direction, when concerning evolution and medicine.

To recap, medical doctors' interests in evolution is in viral and bacterial diseases, not in something that humans that died out more than some tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago.

 

[Polymath257]

There are in fact many people who disagree with your conclusions. I am just one of them. Until you can prove those theories are indisputably without fault, and you can't, then I will believe Jesus and Genesis instead of you.

You can disagree, but are you *qualified* to disagree? What research have you done relevant to the topic? How many paleontological digs have you been on? How many times have you done a comparative study of the DNA of related species?

For that matter, how many technical articles on the subject have you read? Do you know how to identify the major bones of different primate species? Do you have any math, physics, biology, or geology background that would allow you to give an *informed* opinion on any of these topics?

Let's face it, you made your decision based on the propaganda of the extremist creationists and NOT based on the actual science.

NO idea in science or even the real world is proven 'indisputably without fault'. There is *always* the possibility of minor changes in details over time as new information arises. But, in spite of that, the fact that the Earth orbits the sun won't be overturned. Nor will the fact that species change over geological time. Nor will the fact that the Earth is billions of years old and not thousands.

 

[Polymath257]

To be fair, Evolution doesn't get a lot of attention in Medical Science. There is a push for Evolution to receive more attention in Medical Science, but the reason it isn't taught that much is that it's largely irrelevant to Medical Science. Doctors haven't seen the need to know about homo rhodesiensis to treat homo sapiens.

OK, so?

A lot of Theoretical Physics and String "Theory" in particular is pure speculation. They are using the word theory is a non-scientific sense and popularized their notions with books for the general public. It's actually sad what they've done.

Yes, string theory is speculation, as are all the theories of quantum gravity. But quantum mechanics is NOT speculation, nor is the Big Bang scenario for cosmology.

Yes, there is a problem that scientists don't clearly delineate what is known from what is speculated. That is also the result of journalism that wants to report the flashy speculation and not the 'boring' known facts.

Holding off teaching the flat Earth theory is probably best. It doesn't have enough general acceptance. I think it would make a great sub-note in a university Astronomy class.

Only as a historical curiosity. Just as creationism could be a historical curiosity in an entry level biology class or alchemy in a chemistry class. About 10 minutes for each would be quite sufficient.

It is a problem that people keep calling scientific theories facts. The word blurring is not good.

And there is also the problem that what scientists call a theory is typically what the public calls a fact. The cell theory is a fact. The Big Bang theory is a fact. And the theory of evolution is a fact. Dark matter is a fact.


String theory, as you said, is not a fact. Neither are the speculations of how galaxies form. Neither is supersymmetry. But the Higg's boson is a fact.

These things take time. Parents have a right to know what their children are being taught. I would be strongly against teaching Creationism in a Science class (to me that would be a step backwards), but removing Evolution from the curriculum isn't a step backwards, IMO, because it acknowledges the cultural climate of Turkey. Ideas shouldn't be forced upon people until they are ready to accept them and, by extension, those ideas shouldn't be forced onto their children either.

Sorry, but I have to disagree here. To NOT teach the best science is a serious dereliction of duty to the new generation. And I don't see the attitudes of the parents as being relevant to that.

You may think that delaying the topic of Evolution until undergraduate studies moves them towards third world status, but, in this case, I have to disagree. I don't see how failing to teach Evolution to Elementary school children harms a nation's socio-economic structure.
I think there are some things that could hurt a nation's socio-economic structure if they were removed from Elementary Education, but Evolution just isn't one of them.

It retards their development of advances in biology. So any biotech will be eliminated.

Also, from a general perspective, if religion trumps science in the schools, that *is* a push towards third-world status. Given where Turkey was not so long ago, the fact that it has been taken over by the religious extremists is sad. I have a feeling that Ataturk is rolling in his grave.

 

[Skwim]

If you expect me to answer your questions you will need to ask meaningful questions.

Well, it was meaningful to me.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

@Ponder This and @gnostic
I'm not sure why one wouldn't think evolution has applications within the medical field. The billion dollar bioinformematic drug industry wouldn't exist without evolutionary biology. Similarly immunology and medical genetics.
True, a physician at a family practice probably wouldn't be using that knowledge day to day, but the medical field as a whole, surrounding that doctor, hell yeah.

 

[Stevicus]

There are in fact many people who disagree with your conclusions. I am just one of them. Until you can prove those theories are indisputably without fault, and you can't, then I will believe Jesus and Genesis instead of you.

But who says you have to believe one or the other? I'm not saying the theories are faulty, but even if they were, it doesn't mean that the study and research in the subject should be abandoned, ignored, or banned. That's the part that doesn't make any sense.

Besides, it's the religionists who are always complaining that "non-believers" aren't making an honest attempt to seek out evidence for the existence of God. But science is trying and seeking to find evidence for everything; that's what they do. Why not let them continue to seek? Why denigrate them or stand in their way? They are trying to find the answers. Even if there are flaws in their theories, let them work it out using the same scientific principles which have served us well. Leave science to the scientists.

If you don't want to believe in it, that's okay too. It's your right, but all anyone can ask is that no one interfere or impede anyone else's right to seek knowledge about the world in which we live. Likewise, no one should ever interfere or impede your right to believe in Jesus and Genesis. As long as we can agree on that, then we should all be fine.

 

[Valjean]

There are in fact many people who disagree with your conclusions. I am just one of them. Until you can prove those theories are indisputably without fault, and you can't, then I will believe Jesus and Genesis instead of you.

Science will never 'prove' the ToE, just as it will never prove germs cause disease or that the Earth is spherical -- as you know if you've been reading the threads in the Evolution vs Creationism forum. The fact is, the ToE has at least as much supporting evidence as the germ theory, while Christian theology has pretty much no supporting evidence; certainly no empirical support.

Why would a medical doctor need to know anything about Homo rhodesiensis?

Doctors only need to treat patients, now and in the future. And they would need medical records of past successful and unsuccessful treatments of the past 100 years or so, and not of of couple of hundreds of thousand of years.

So of course, the medical professionals wouldn't need to know anything about medical history of the Homo rhodesiensis.

Tu quoque --
why would an "evolutionist" need to know anything about abiogenesis? Evolution deniers are certainly persistent in presenting this as a major flaw in the ToE.

Physicians don't spend a great deal of time studying H. rhodesiensis, it's true. But they do study the evolution of endemic diseased and viruses, prion diseases, erethrocyte sickling and malaria. And how can endogenous retroviruses be explained without appealing to evolution?

The ToE is the foundation upon which all biology related disciplines rest. It's the mechanism that ties everything together and makes sense of it all.

The application for evolution in medicine is in the viral and bacterial diseases and in vaccine and antibiotic researches.

The interests in evolution, from a medical standpoint, relates to mutation of viruses and bacteria, eg how viruses mutate into new strains, to make itself immune to current antibiotic or vaccine, and the probability of vaccine being useful in combating viral diseases.

You are look at evolution, but in the wrong direction, when concerning evolution and medicine.

To recap, medical doctors' interests in evolution is in viral and bacterial diseases, not in something that humans that died out more than some tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Good, you're beginning to get it.

 

[Stevicus]

And there is also the problem that what scientists call a theory is typically what the public calls a fact. The cell theory is a fact. The Big Bang theory is a fact. And the theory of evolution is a fact. Dark matter is a fact.

I'll admit that I used to get confused by this whole "fact vs. theory" business, although it may also be due to learning older forms of scientific terminology. For example, some cite the example of the "Theory of Gravity," although when I was growing up and attending school, it was never called that. They called it the "Law of Gravity," which seemed to carry more weight and authority than "theory." It wasn't called the "Fact of Gravity," although it was (and still is) accepted as fact.

Or the Laws of Thermodynamics, which is another example of a scientific use of the word "law." So, in the public's mind, when they hear a scientist use the word "law," that's what they would perceive as "fact," more than the word "theory." That may be where part of the confusion comes from.

If they simply called it the "Law of Evolution," just like with the Law of Gravity and the Laws of Thermodynamics, then much of this debate would probably go away.

 

[Ponder This]

This is like saying architects don't need to understand geometry or physicists don't need algebra.

No... it's not.

Medical research depends on an understanding of evolution. All biological based sciences are based on evolution.

It's not that the medical establishment doubts evolution, it's just that traditionally it hasn't viewed it as particularly relevant to taking care of patients." - Evolution in medical school: Do we need more of it?

But they are facts:
Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia

There are facts and there are theoretical ideas based on those facts. The facts part is facts, but the theoretical ideas part isn't fact simply because it is based on fact (or provides "a provisional explanation for these facts" - Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia). Using the one word "Evolution" as a blanket to cover everything has resulted in people confusing fact with theory.

Would you eliminate physics, geology and astronomy as well as biology, then? Education involves both the acquisition of facts and the skills to understand, manipulate and apply them.
The real crime is indoctrinating children in religious doctrine before they're capable of logical evaluation and critical analysis.

I would not eliminate Physics, Geology, Astronomy, or Biology. I also don't have a problem with teaching Evolution in Elementary school. What I'm saying is that parents have rights regarding what their children are being taught. Children often aren't given sex education until puberty. Isn't it strange that people wouldn't want to give their children all the facts from a very young age? But people don't want to give that information out until the kids are entering puberty. They just don't want their kids to know.

Of course, some parents actually tell their children the truth early on before they ever get close to puberty but, for the general public, it doesn't appear to matter if the information is true or not. The culture has to be ready to accept that it's okay to talk about these things. We shouldn't force it. Are we failing to teach biology to our children and condemning them to third world status by not giving them sex education until they reach puberty? Don't be absurd.

Elementary education teaches the elements that other disciplines are based on. A society that fails to teach its children their letters, their numbers or the basic facts underlying our understanding of the world; our understanding of how things work and relate to each other, will raise a generation of scientifically and technically retarded citizens. How will such a handicapped society manage in today's technological world?

LoL. When people are ready to talk, then there will be a conversation. Otherwise, you might as well be starting a war.

All of biology and related technologies rest on a foundation of evolution. The discipline just makes no sense without it. At best it would be a collection of unrelated and useless observations.
You may as well remove arithmetic or phonics from the curriculum.

Evolution didn't seem to be essential when I learned Biology. However, I'm not an expert in Biology. I'm open to the idea that Evolution is absolutely essential to understand Biology, but since I haven't been convinced of this, I don't see that it is essential.

The interests in evolution, from a medical standpoint, relates to mutation of viruses and bacteria, eg how viruses mutate into new strains, to make itself immune to current antibiotic or vaccine, and the probability of vaccine being useful in combating viral diseases.

To recap, medical doctors' interests in evolution is in viral and bacterial diseases, not in something that humans that died out more than some tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Well said. To be clear here, I thought we were discussing Evolution as it relates to the origin of species such as homo sapiens.

OK, so?

So, ok. Muslim cleric storms off stage was exaggeration.

Sorry, but I have to disagree here. To NOT teach the best science is a serious dereliction of duty to the new generation. And I don't see the attitudes of the parents as being relevant to that.

The attitudes of parents are always relevant to any discussion about their children. Always. To think otherwise is ignorance, lack of respect, and even immoral and it betrays a lack of understanding of family values and the basic family unit. Children are not free to make decisions nor do they take on full responsibility for their actions.

 

[Polymath257]

The attitudes of parents are always relevant to any discussion about their children. Always. To think otherwise is ignorance, lack of respect, and even immoral and it betrays a lack of understanding of family values and the basic family unit. Children are not free to make decisions nor do they take on full responsibility for their actions.

I have no respect for ignorant parents promoting that ignorance in their children.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll admit that I used to get confused by this whole "fact vs. theory" business, although it may also be due to learning older forms of scientific terminology. For example, some cite the example of the "Theory of Gravity," although when I was growing up and attending school, it was never called that. They called it the "Law of Gravity," which seemed to carry more weight and authority than "theory." It wasn't called the "Fact of Gravity," although it was (and still is) accepted as fact.

As I see it.....
The Law Of Gravity: Masses attract each other
The Theory Of Gravity: Masses attract each other exactly as described by <insert forumua here> (under certain conditions).

Or the Laws of Thermodynamics, which is another example of a scientific use of the word "law." So, in the public's mind, when they hear a scientist use the word "law," that's what they would perceive as "fact," more than the word "theory." That may be where part of the confusion comes from.

The laws of thermodynamics are observations of the behavior of heat.

If they simply called it the "Law of Evolution," just like with the Law of Gravity and the Laws of Thermodynamics, then much of this debate would probably go away.

A "law of evolution" would describe what's found in the fossil record, what's observed real time, & simulations using biomimicry.
The TOE is the theoretical model of behaviors observed (which lead to the theory).

But I'd go further to say that the TOE is a theory which has risen to the level of fact.
It's an unavoidable system response with no contradiction or alternative theory.


Caution!
The above is just an engineer's perspective. (Worse yet....only a master's degree.)
Sophisticated (& obsessive pedantic) science types with huge degres in physics
will no doubt disagree. But we gearheads can look at something like Boyle's Law,
& say "Yeah, close enuf...if important, I'll go to the gas tables for adjuistments.".
And of course, there's the all important Murphy's Law. Flout it at your peril!

 

[Polymath257]

I'll admit that I used to get confused by this whole "fact vs. theory" business, although it may also be due to learning older forms of scientific terminology. For example, some cite the example of the "Theory of Gravity," although when I was growing up and attending school, it was never called that. They called it the "Law of Gravity," which seemed to carry more weight and authority than "theory." It wasn't called the "Fact of Gravity," although it was (and still is) accepted as fact.

Or the Laws of Thermodynamics, which is another example of a scientific use of the word "law." So, in the public's mind, when they hear a scientist use the word "law," that's what they would perceive as "fact," more than the word "theory." That may be where part of the confusion comes from.

If they simply called it the "Law of Evolution," just like with the Law of Gravity and the Laws of Thermodynamics, then much of this debate would probably go away.

The problem is that there was a shift in the terminology around 1900. The 'law' of gravity that had been used prior to that was discovered to be wrong in detail. The 'laws' of thermodynamics, as based in statistical mechanics, were found to be incomplete. So, Newton's 'law' of gravity was replaced by Einstein's 'theory' of relativity, even though the latter is more accurate than the former. In thermodynamics, it was realized that classical 'laws' were wrong and that quantum 'theory' was a *much* better description of what actually happens.

So, today, it is much more common to call even very well supported scientific concepts 'theories' rather than 'laws'.

Now, even though Newton's 'laws' were replaced by Einstein's 'theories' and even though those 'theories' are much more accurate than the 'laws', many of the conclusions of the 'laws' are still accurate *enough* to be used for space probes, etc. The Earth still orbits the sun. This is less the with statistical mechanics, where the quantum 'theory' is required to get even reasonably accurate results, although for mono-atomic gases it gives good results.

And yes, much of this terminology is a reaction to calling the classical views 'laws' and then finding them to be incomplete. The tendency to call things in science 'laws' went out about 100 years ago because of these changes.

If we had the information 150 years ago that we do now, the theory of evolution would be called a law.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'll admit that I used to get confused by this whole "fact vs. theory" business, although it may also be due to learning older forms of scientific terminology. For example, some cite the example of the "Theory of Gravity," although when I was growing up and attending school, it was never called that. They called it the "Law of Gravity," which seemed to carry more weight and authority than "theory." It wasn't called the "Fact of Gravity," although it was (and still is) accepted as fact.

Or the Laws of Thermodynamics, which is another example of a scientific use of the word "law." So, in the public's mind, when they hear a scientist use the word "law," that's what they would perceive as "fact," more than the word "theory." That may be where part of the confusion comes from.

If they simply called it the "Law of Evolution," just like with the Law of Gravity and the Laws of Thermodynamics, then much of this debate would probably go away.

If it helps to break it down, all facts are observation and all theories are mechanisms to explain the relationship between those facts. In this case seeing an inherited trait be emphasized in subsequent generations of offspring via natural selection shows the fact of evolution. The mechanism by which genes are acquired, selected and propagated is the theory of evolution.

Laws are not higher than theories (there is usually both, law of gravity and theory of relativity and universal gravitation, etc.) Laws are theories where a primary tenant can be expressed in a mathematic formula. There are no laws in biology because no biological tenant (so far) is simple enough to be expressed formulaicly. So the theory that macrobiological life is composed of microbiological cells is cell theory rather than the law of cells.

 

[Polymath257]

If it helps to break it down, all facts are observation and all theories are mechanisms to explain the relationship between those facts. In this case seeing an inherited trait be emphasized in subsequent generations of offspring via natural selection shows the fact of evolution. The mechanism by which genes are acquired, selected and propagated is the theory of evolution.

Laws are not higher than theories (there is usually both, law of gravity and theory of relativity and universal gravitation, etc.) Laws are theories where a primary tenant can be expressed in a mathematic formula. There are no laws in biology because no biological tenant (so far) is simple enough to be expressed formulaicly. So the theory that macrobiological life is composed of microbiological cells is cell theory rather than the law of cells.

The description of a mathematical relationship as a 'law' has declined significantly since 1900 because of the rise of relativity and quantum mechanics. Both of those are highly mathematical, but they replaced the previous 'classical laws'. The newer, more accurate, descriptions are none-the-less called theories. About the only concepts still described as 'laws' are the conservation laws (conservation of mass/energy, for example) which have maintained a similar form even after the shift to relativity and quantum mechanics.

Human language can be strange at times.

 

[Milton Platt]

Turkey will stop teaching evolution in schools, education ministry says

Turkish schools to stop teaching evolution, official says

Turkey is apparently trying to challenge home-schooling for the lowest standard of education. Please discuss.

i find this interesting. Don't Islamists generally accept evolution and science in the broader sense?

 

[gnostic]

@Ponder This and @gnostic
I'm not sure why one wouldn't think evolution has applications within the medical field. The billion dollar bioinformematic drug industry wouldn't exist without evolutionary biology. Similarly immunology and medical genetics.
True, a physician at a family practice probably wouldn't be using that knowledge day to day, but the medical field as a whole, surrounding that doctor, hell yeah.

I didn't say that medical doctors don't need to know or understand evolution.

All I am saying to Ponder This, is that they do not specialised or they don't have expertise in the study of fossils, hence they are not palaeontologists.

Their (medical doctors) main focus in evolution are in regarding to diseases - viral and bacterial - and in medicine such as developing antibiotics and vaccines.

And yes, you are right, the applications for evolution in medicine are about immunology and genetics.

My point to Ponder This is that it is not generally places for medical doctors to play with fossils of primitive or ancient species. Medical doctors are not palaeontologists, palaeo-anthropologists or archaeologists.

Medicine only need to treat modern humans, not that of other Homo species.

 

[Yerda]

I actually like the idea. The entire TOE is just a theory. Until the entire TOE can be shown to be true it should not be taught as truth like it is in the USA.

Hi. What was your experience of being taught evolution in high school?

 

[gnostic]

Well said. To be clear here, I thought we were discussing Evolution as it relates to the origin of species such as homo sapiens.

But for medicine, doctors only focused on treating modern humans, and not of other Homo species.

The focus on evolution - be they Natural Selection, Mutation, Genetic Drift or Gene Flow - the real interests in medicine are in the studies of immunology (eg viruses and vaccines) and in genetics (hereditary diseases).

Medical students do need to know and understand evolutionary biology, but it more to do with genetics, viruses and medical treatments, and not on fossils.

Most medical students don't touch on fossils, because they are not looking to become palaeontologists or archaeologists.

Most medical students don't study archaeology, they don't need to understand how the Palaeolithic or Neolithic people create tools from stone, flints, bones and wood. They don't need to know how the Neolithic people began to farm their own food, build homes in more permanent settlements or how they start a new industry -pottery - for storing food.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Gravity's "just a theory" too. So's the spherical nature of the Earth

Do you even know what the word 'theory' means?

I ask you -- how many of the people who post on these sites (and especially those arguing against what science says about their pet beliefs) actually has much idea of what science, and scientific theory in particular, means?

I continue to maintain, as I have all my life, that religion will ultimately, and always, insist upon dogmatic belief over trying to reconcile spiritual concerns with knowledge and understanding of what actually is.

 

[Milton Platt]

Turkey is becoming a basket case.
It is perhaps over the edge as to becoming a Muslim dictatorship.
Erdogan now has powers that are unresistable by anyone. it is illegal to oppose him.

Stupid happens every day of the week