I mean the teaching of it? Do we really need to be taught Darwinism to build a fission reactor?
Printable View
I mean the teaching of it? Do we really need to be taught Darwinism to build a fission reactor?
Not at all. It does not effect life in any way shape or form. While the theory is a very good one, I do not beleive it explains, fully at least, the creation of the World. I'm more of a Social Darwinist, to be honest. Natural selection may be natural, but it sure as [bleep] ain't random.
Other things you don't need to study in order to build a fission reactor:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Literature
History
Music
Art
Psychology
Medicine
Should we scrap all of those from the "need to know" list as well?
You certainly do not need it to build a fission reactor, but you need it to understand how species are grouped into philum, genus and such.Quote:
I mean the teaching of it? Do we really need to be taught Darwinism to build a fission reactor?
I'm not trying to be a sarcastic, smart-ass, either. I'm just wondering aloud really.
And I also meant the fission reactor as an example, not a specific. Essentially, what branches of science are based on evolution? Certainly modern biology and zoology.
It's just that the outcry that goes "If we allow Intelligent Design, we'll revert back to the Stone Age" doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
The Stone Age argument isn't really meant ot mean we revert to the Stone Age, why should anyone even believe it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
It is meant to express a devolution of society I guess (note the pun ~D).
Yes teaching it is important. It proves that God is dead, which is the goal of how many people on this board?
Much of biology uses the theory, so yes, it should be taught.
Azi
Neitzche is dead, but due to the nature of Humanity there shall always exist caves in which his shadow can be seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azi Tohak
I am the man. ~:)
It's critical to pretty much all of biology isn't it?
I am not sure I can think of a more important thing to teach, at least in terms of self-knowledge. I know there are pitfalls with sociobiology etc, but it is hard to escape the conclusion that how we got here (evolution) determines an awful lot of what how we behave now we are here (social science). It will take a lot of difficult work to fill in the dots, but I think it is not hard to see there will be a pretty impressive picture that emerges. The moral, religious and personal implications are rather fascinating too, although I confess I find them rather dark.
I'm not a natural scientist, but I suspect we haven't seen anything yet in terms of the practical and intellectual contribution genetics will make to future knowledge in that area. Just knowing there is a gene you can insert to make a fruitfly homosexual is pretty mindblowing. Less frivolously, future improvements in agricultural and medical technology will probably depend on genetic research. Do you need to know evolution to research genetics? I'm not sure, but I suspect most geneticists would say it belongs in genetics 101.
I don't really know about genetics. I'll probably be attacked by some real geneticist, but it seems like you don't need to know the evolutionary relationships between species because you have the genetic relationships between them.
I take it you're not a big fan of social Darwinism, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pope Urban VIII
For those who don't know, Copernican Theory states that the Earth revolves with other planets around the Sun, and Pope Urban VIII was in charge when Inquisitors found Galileo guilty of heresy and sentenced him to life imprisonment for discussing the 'theory'
ichi :bow:
Touche.
Pwned.
:no:
You don't need to know anything to build a fission reactor.
There are ones found in nature such as Oklo (I studied the Barium isotope drift for my 3rd year physics project on Thermal Ionisation Mass Spectrometers).
Oklo: Natural Nuclear Reactors
So nature makes fission reactors. Oh and evolution helps determine the atmospheric content required to make the right oxides. ~D ~:cool:
This is only my opinion on it.
Evolution is important because it teaches how the specialization of animal life and yes even plants has come about. Something that without you could never understand how selective breeding has been used to also create specialization in animals soley for the benefit of man.
Don't make me whip out chapter 3 in my AP Bio book. ~:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
IMHO, Evolution should be taught as part of the biology sylabus. Not part of the general science.
So biology isn't part of general science? ~D
I have to agree... I did the real sciences, chemisty, geology, physics. ~;)
Why don't you go shut up and calculate you blasted physicist.
Btw, is that quote from Hofstadter?
There was a good article on evolution and intelligent design theory today in the Washington Post: "New Analyses Bolster Central Tenets of Evolution Theory"
Give it a read. It lays out some of the recent tests (working with the chimp genome, differently evolving bacteria colonies, etc.) that support evolution.
One of the article's main points is that evolution is testable. It is science because you can make predictions, set up experiments, and see if the results of the tests support your theory.
'Intelligent Design' shouldn't be taught in science classrooms because it isn't science. It's not testable. Furthermore, ID makes a lot of claims about evolutionary theory that are just wrong. The central tenets of ID... their ideas about irreduceable complexity, and the idea that evolution can't account for dramatic changes in morphology are based on very simplistic notions that don't take into account the modern understanding of how evolving animals make small changes to existing 'programs' and resources to achieve what appear to be radically different designs.
...
Anyway, the teaching of evolution (or not) will have all sorts of practical consequences for future scientific advances. Besides being crucial to understanding genetics and bio-engineering, evolutionary concepts can be applied to other fields, like artificial intelligence and nanotechnology.
The quote is from myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skomatth
And I have also studied Biology since I could read anything... I asked for the book of Life on Earth: A Natural History for my 7th birthday (the hardbound book of 300 pages) and read the Childcraft Encyclopedia Earth and Space volume the same year and came to the conclusion that I did not want to attend Sunday school anymore as there was far more interesting things to find out about.
On a useful use of evolution apart from animal breeding is in the treatement of viruses and bacteria.
The value of teaching evolution theory, including its many open ends and the various ways in which they are being researched, is that it familiarizes children with the rigour of science. Science is by its very nature both a realm of intellectual freedom and an elite project. That is why totalitarian movements fear it, abhor its privileged exponents, dodge its irreverent questions, tries to control its indomitable curiosity. Lysenkoism in the USSR, concave earth theory under Hitler, and creationism in Christianity all have the same anti-intellectual roots.
I think the question is more general myself. Evolution is a very important part of biological science. In all honesty, in some ways its importance can be overstated. I read biochemistry of four years and its probably true to say I wouldn't have needed to know about evolution to have done so successfully (though it certainly made things like immunology easier). IMHO a little bit of the fetishising of evolution in the biological world is because its the only (or anyway the best) example we have of an overarching unifying theory. Rutherfords jibe ("there are two kinds of science, physics and stamp collecting) still stings. Anyway, you would have to be a dull biologist indeed to study genes or protein folding or whatever, and never ask yourself where all this complexity came from.
But as a symbol of hard won human knowledge of the way the world is that is at danger of being not taught because it does not agree with some people's belief of the way the world should be, evolution should be defended to the death (provided, of course, you have already made sure you have at least two children in the next generation and your enemies do not... ~;) ) This is independent of any special quality of evolution, I'd feel the same way if the Bible said there was no such thing as Newtonian mechanics or even, Darwin forgive me for saying it, literary deconstruction.
I think that evolution is very important. It creates an awareness on all living things around us and make us respect it. Furthermore, it is actually an important part of our current world view and therefore crucial for everyone to know and understand.
Well, some biologist said once: "Nothing in biology makes any sense except seen in the light of evolution." So, what we have to consider is, is biology important?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Darwinism should not be confused with modern evolution models. Darwin's achievement was mostly only to discover and prove the principle. Using the principle to create an accurate scientific model is something that hasn't been done until today. Darwin's teachings are too lacking to teach, we should instead teach the modern more complete versions of evolution models with loads of examples. There are several fields in which evolution is necessary to know about:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
1. psycology
2. medicine
3. political and society philosophy
4. the dangers of breeding animals and letting all our meat come from only a few races of only a few species of animals.
5. how civilization causes undesired breeding of mankind in directions that we don't desire
1. Understanding which behaviors we have can easily be derived from the principle of discovering which behaviors are most benefitial. Applying a method similar to statistical Markov chains can give us pretty good insight in behavior and enable us to create a good model of it.
2. Most medicin works differently depending on genetical composition of the user. A lethal dose for one patient can be a tenth of what another patient needs. A lot of modern medicins are pointless without at least some genetical insight.
3. Favoring evil and undesired behaviors in the evolutionary aspect will result in making entire mankind more evil. Things such as driving some people to suicide and punish others with death either by juridical methods or by accidents or sending them to war etc., changes the gene pool of mankind and will, unless action is taken to prevent it (by changing society to stop favoring certain types in this way), result in the extinction of the human species.
4. An epidemia has the potential of completely extincting one of our very little genetically varied soruces of food. There is a potential chance of us even losing two major food producing species at once in this way. Such an event would be disastrous to us. Understanding this can further motivate necessities like birth control, keeping of genetical variety within bred species and keeping habitats for natural non-bred species in the event of our meat-producing species being extincted. Only by realizing this threat - and it can only be realized through knowing evolution - can we counter it in time.
5. this was mentioned in point no. 3.
The backside of evolution and genetics (edit: have to clarify I mean "teaching of evolution and genetics") is cloning and other acts that would remove the magic of life of a human, and probably finally and irrevocably lose our moral standpoints against killing and similar. Also genetical modification of living humans, which would remove the entire point of love. Reproduction through laboratory methods also has a danger of making us lose the point of sex. Imagine how fun a society where life has no meaning, love doesn't exist, and sex doesn't exist, would be. Evolution can also teach us how certain behaviors and society structures can lead to increase in malaciousness and spread of STD's. In the future, we might end up needing full-body-covering condoms in order to have sex, if over-population, globalization (mainly travelling back and forth) and similar phenomenons continue. If we're wise enough to understand evolution, we'll realize these dangers and counter them. If not, we'll use genetics technology for creating such a future scenario.
You guys all come up withgood points as to why evolution is important outside biology, but one point at least remains. I have thus taken it upon myself to present it in the absence of better qualified people. :book:
Take a look at cars for instance.
They evolve, with the prime factor for survival is not how easy it is to get food (fuel) but if the car can gather up prey (humans).
Quite simply cars hav had many many dead-ends. Cars that couldn't cut it and died out, other more suitable cars took their place. It even fits that even the old successful breeds, such as Ford T, eventually almost died out, to the point it didn't reproduce anymore. The simple fact is that at a point other cars were better than the Ford T.
Not satisfied?
Take a look at American cars compared to Japanese and Europeans cars. The former are generally bigger, longer and heavier. This was born out of the often lacking roads and open spaces ofteh early 20th century. Meanwhile in Europe the roads were slim, and the cities extremely dense. There was no room for big cars. In that habitat the small Fiat 500 was top dog for a while, it could get into even the smallest alleys. Was it comfortable to travel long distances in? No, so it didn't do too well in America, where its prime advantage was unimportant, and its disadvantages a severe drawback.
Those cars have evolved from pretty much the same creature. The engined carriage, but the different habitats forced a fork in the evolution of the car.
The same can be argued about tanks. There too we find many dead designs, tanks that didn't survive as a concept.
The main difference is that the cars and tanks don't evolve themselves, but the principles as to survival are the same.
A better analogy would be Car companies and how they compete with each other for the same environmenal niche. How generations of cars change to meet consumer (environmental) demands.
In my opinion there are two reasons, why it is very important to teach evolution.
1. It is extremely important for medicine/drug developement.
For example, if giving anti-biotica to a patient, it is very important to understand how bacteria will build up resistance to that, in order to avoid that. And that simply is evolution/selection.
Another obvious thing to me is, the necessity to understand the spread of certain pathogens from one species to another. Just think of bird flu, which spread from birds to humans. Or HIV, which many people claim to originally have been an ape disease. That is also evolution and can be vital to understand.
A third thing is cancer. Cancer is caused by your on mutated (evolution) somatic cells. So, to early recognize (and in the future hopefully to prevent) cancer, it is crucial to know what exactly happens and why...
2. I think it is generally a poor thing to forbid teaching of an accredited thesis. Even of a more controversial thing. Of course it is necessary to also mention and discuss doubts concerning evolution. But I think it is wrong and even dangerous if one group in society tries to totally deny you access to knowledge, dissagreeing with their believes.
So it's all about capitalism... And that would make creationism communistic I guess..... ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio