Creationism growing in European schools

[sz_matyas]

Saying it is a judgment of evolution would definitely be going too far and evolution has in the past and will in the future address much larger issues than this. What it does do is either push back the time when humans and chimps diverged evolutionarily or speed up the rate of mutation. Neither is impossible by theory, but it does push probabilities down significantly, hence raising the bar for evolution.

The other problem with this and evolution is that many proponents in public and in high schools attached undue weight to the 1% difference. Now that this has been shown false, even if the scientific theories aren't drastically affected (which they shouldn't be) the public perception of evolution takes a hit. Should this be trumpeted loudly in the media and used as a blunt weapon by its opponents in the public relations battle, evolution may be (unfairly) ostracized from open debate in some circles, either as it must be true and its opponents are desperate or that it can't even get simple things right.

[romeothemonk]

I brought this up, as I was taught repeatedly in my life, including in college, that the fact that Chimp DNA is only 1-2% different is proof of Evolution. The fact that the DNA is similar means that Evolution happened. The widening of the difference between the two by a large multiple strikes me as a huge dogmatic blow, much like the blow landed on the catholic church by the reformation.
It doesn't prove or disprove any theory, it just renders moot the argument used most often on me that evolution must be true. The fact that it appears in Science is just a kicker.
I think Akots hit this firmly on the head when he says that this study is absolutely useless at the current stage of science development, which I also interpret as reading that the previous study it refuted is also absolutely useless.

[sz_matyas]

Exactly right in that this is more of a PR issue than a science one. Unfortunately it seems to have turned into a PR battle in most cases with a number of engineers and scientists trying their best to avoid angering either side (and in some cases important research is left undone or to the cranks as evidenced by the latest scandal with Watson).

[grahamiam]

quote:Originally posted by romeothemonk

The widening of the difference between the two by a large multiple strikes me as a huge dogmatic blow, much like the blow landed on the catholic church by the reformation.

um, no it doesn't. Or maybe I should say, it doesn't if you understand how science works. Evolution isn't dogma, it's science so it may change over time due to increased understanding of the subject matter.

[sz_matyas]

quote:
Evolution isn't dogma, it's science so it may change over time due to increased understanding of the subject matter.

That is where you are both 100% accurate and completely wrong. To a majority of people, science has proved evolution and that is that. Anything you say challenging that assumption is heresy and you don't understand science. Yes, there may be major problems with evolution, but they just haven't been worked out yet and will be in the future. No other view point is credible because they require a greater intelligence than man (my personal favorite, especially given that I have heard and it was from a history of science professor).

Perhaps an easier way to see the dogmatism involved in this type of science is to look at Watson's recent remarks on race and intelligence. He presents a perfectly valid proposition under the evolutionary model (disjoint populations develop different intelligence capabilities) and gets fired and hounded by the media and all research in the area is shut down to avoid future firestorms. (A broader issue with people taking similar dogmatic stances on very little information is global warming, but that isn't played out or especially relevant to the debate)

[grahamiam]

You are inventing controversy where there is none.

[sz_matyas]

Close, but not quite. I'm pointing out controversy where there should be none. But when you have politicians making science decisions this will always happen.

[grahamiam]

I doubt the improvement in the understanding in regards to the Human-Chimp genome relationship will have much of an effect on the Department of Education (despite your wildly off-target strawmen).

Anyways, in regards to the OP, if you want to go with Creationist "science" in schools, you'll have this bit of awesomeness to look forward to -> http://www.flickr.com/photos/scalzi/...7603091357751/



My favorite bits are in regards to weeds and carnavores. Just be glad that I saved you the $20 from having to check out this out in person.

[Markstar]

@grahamiam:

It's sooo sad, though. It's in those moments I feel ashamed of being a human.

[sz_matyas]

Very amusing there grahamiam, must say I thoroughly enjoyed it.

As far as response: While I don't believe it will have a dramatic impact on the department of education (or children, families and learning or whatever it is called), I believe it will have an impact. Enough impact to change things by itself, probably not. Enough that it could change a marginal position, probably, but remember things generally change marginally.

As far as the Creation Museum slide show, there are two important aspects:
1) There are a massive number of people present (and they are actually expanding the museum with close to $1M worth of improvements from what I've heard). Either the schools are doing a terrible job of teaching these people an irrefutable fact or the schools are refusing to allow a popular theory to be taught.
2) The debate was over ID being taught in the schools, which is significantly different from the position presented by the Creation Museum and most scholarly ID people dismiss them as crackpots. As such the CM should have no bearing on the debate (though it clearly does on both sides).