Monkey Madness (part 6)

Okay, so let's look at some questions that students could bring up in a science classroom that would further a scientific discussion. Notice I didn't say "religious" discussion. Remember, my concern here is with the science that is taught in the classroom. In fact, I encourage students to be the ones to help redirect teachers away from discussions that focus on religion when it comes to this topic.

• Did Charles Darwin believe that there would be evidence in the fossil record to substantiate the theory of evolution? Is that still the belief among most scientists today? If so, what are some examples of the evidence? If not, why not?

• What sparked Stephen Jay Gould's desire to devise a "punctuated equilibrium" (or equilibria) theory? How does this position contrast with Darwinian evolution? Who supports/opposes it?

• Generally, does the fossil record show transitional species or intermediates (so called "missing links"), or does it show fully-formed, complex creatures?

• Would you explain how some "missing links" have been shown to be frauds, like "Nebraska Man" and "Piltdown Man" and the "Archaeoraptor"? Why do you think some scientists feel it is necessary to make up evidence to prove evolution?

• How would the fossil record differ from what we see now if a global flood had actually taken place and evolution between species did not occur?

• Ernst Haeckel's drawings illustrating "embryonic recapitulation" in the 1860's were exposed as frauds by university science professors the same year they were fabricated. Still, well over a century later, prominent evolutionists, textbooks, and other publications promote his drawings as "proof" of evolution despite knowing they are false. Why? (Again, why is it necessary to fabricate evidence if there is abundant proof for the theory of evolution?)

• When similarities in genetic makeup are noticed between species, what makes a common ancestor more plausible than a common designer from a "quantity of evidence" standpoint?

• Biogenesis (life being produced by other life) is observable reality. Never has life been observed to arise from nonliving material. Doesn't the origin of life theory associated with evolution defy this scientific axiom?

• What role do genetic mutations play in the theory of evolution? Do mutations ever add information or make things more complex? If so, when and how?

• What is your position on the Anthropic Principle?

• What are your thoughts about the Cosmological Constant related to Einstein's work?

• Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Monkey Madness (part 5)

According to the National Geographic article by David Quammen in 2004 (to which I referenced in one of my previous posts), a staggering percentage of the American population do not accept the theory of evolution. The statistics were actually quite surprising to me, but they provide another opportunity for more questions.

A question I would love to hear students asking in response to these kinds of findings might be, Why do you think roughly half of Americans believe that God created people sometime within the last 10,000 years? This question isn't so much to make an argument against anything, but it is important to realize the underlying assumptions of both sides in this debate.

When teachers make any kind of statements about religion, the Bible, or creationism, it should be fair for a student to ask, What does taking the Scriptures (or tenets of said faith) literally teach us about creation and the origin of life?

Some things to ponder when considering source evidence:

• New discoveries and understandings lead to changes in the theory of evolution. The creation story as told in Genesis has never had to be revised due to new findings.
• The Bible is written by about 40 different authors over a 1500 year time span on three different continents from people of all ranks of society. There is simply no other work, sacred or secular, that has even close to such an incredible story of formation and preservation.
• The Bible is the best selling book in the world. Its historical accuracy is remarkable. Archaeologists uphold its claims time and time again.

Please note that none of these facts mean that the Bible is divinely inspired, or the "word of God." That belief still requires faith. However, it also makes no sense to entirely dismiss a source that is the most scrutinized, analyzed, and critiqued literary and historical work ever known to mankind. The time and careful process the Bible went through as it was developed and compiled through the ages is unmatched.

Monkey Madness - The Creation/Evolution Debate Rages On (part 4)

In case anyone wonders if this topic is still timely, here is one of the featured videos on the MSN website for today, August 4, 2012. Enough said!

You can't even make this stuff up. Watch this clip about the "randomness and nastiness of evolution" (their words, not mine) if you want and ask yourself, Does this sound like science or science fiction? By the way, the second video on the site is "Humans vs. Aliens." I have to give it to them. If they can't be scientific, then at least be entertaining. I guess that's what Morgan Freeman's voice is for. Maybe it is their attempt to add scientific credibility to their position. You know, because famous Hollywood movie stars do that.

The third video is just as fun. I wish I could have been in the room while Morgan Freeman was recording it so I could occasionally interrupt and ask, "Could you say that last sentence out loud again?"

Monkey Madness (part 3)

The following link is an article that launched a series I presented at my local church at the time (almost 8 years ago). It lays out a four-fold argument in favor of Darwinian evolution. What interests me about this article is that the points the author uses are rather easy to refute by merely setting out a few facts with only a small amount of research, which could be done by just about anyone, anywhere, anytime.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html

Besides the interesting selection of points, this article is also entertaining because of the "artistic" description of the theory of evolution. The sentences below offer one example.

"Evolutionary theory, though, is a bit different. It's such a dangerously wonderful and far-reaching view of life that some people find it unacceptable, despite the vast body of supporting evidence."

Dangerously wonderful? Despite the vast body of supporting evidence?
Students need to be trained to read critically and recognize the bias of authors, teachers, etc. If you read the article, then you will find many other not-so-subtle jabs that paint critics of evolution as religious nuts or ignorant fools with covert brush strokes. This is a common tactic of people that lack substance in their position on the real issue.


What makes a scientific theory "dangerously wonderful" anyway?

Monkey Madness (part 2)

Question #1

Student: "My theory, or belief, for how life began involves a supernatural act. I believe God, a divine being, created all plant, animal, and human life on this planet in the beginning of time on Earth. I realize that this view is sometimes ridiculed and labeled as a "myth" or "fairy tale." I would like it if you, Mr./Ms. ____ (professor/teacher/indocrinator), would just give me a simple summary of how you think life began on this planet."

Thoughts to Consider
No one was there when it all started. Whether it was billions of years ago or 6000 years ago, we can still be confident that no one alive today was anywhere close to the events that launched this whole process! Therefore, right off the bat, we know one thing for sure. Everything about the origins of life is educated guesswork at best. Theory! Neither side can be dogmatic about much of anything. So, then, it comes down to how evidence is interpreted.
This leads to some follow-up questions that students can always ask, all based on whether evidence is interpreted in an objective, sensible manner.

Now, when a teacher does honestly answer this student's question and includes things like life arising from nonliving matter, primordial soup, a moon-like object breaking apart and then combining with other "space rocks" to form another ball of rock that continues to grow and morph into a suddenly life-sustaining planet on a defined orbit (another proposal I've heard), etc., then it will be up to that student to determine whether the answer sounds more like science or science fiction.

Below is an excerpt from a PBS website that is about a NOVA special considering how life began:

In a nutshell, what is the process? How does life form?
The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance. That said, I think what we're looking for is some kind of molecule that is simple enough that it can be made by physical processes on the young Earth, yet complicated enough that it can take charge of making more of itself. That, I think, is the moment when we cross that great divide and start moving toward something that most people would recognize as living.


The truth is that the more you read responses from evolutionists about how life may have begun, the more you will find there is great uncertainty, and even disagreement, among many of them. Of course, to their defense, there can't be much certainty about something no one was around to observe.