The world did not change on 11 September 2001. It changed in 1859 when the first edition of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of the Species" appeared. It's still a worthwhile read.

Since then the evidence in support of Darwin's brilliant insight has grown exponentially. I fail to understand how anyone viewing the evidence dispassionately can reject evolution through natural selection.

But people do – especially Muslim and Christian fundamentalists. See:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=67709

In the end people will believe what they want to believe. I have as much chance of persuading a Muslim or Christian fundamentalist of the reality of evolution as I have of convincing Andrew Bolt he ought to take global warming seriously.

What, if anything, to do?

I would hate to have to teach biology from a textbook that gives equal weight to creationism or "intelligent design" so I sympathise with teachers and scientists who want to keep egregious garbage out of their teaching materials. But is this the right approach?

The religios say they want equal time for their crackpottery.

Maybe we should give them equal time.

The story of evolution is not only great science; it's a compelling human tale. For sheer drama and wonderment it eclipses anything to be found in any so-called "holy book." The cast of characters ranges from the 17th Century monk, Nicholas Steno to 2006 Nobel laureate Andrew Fire and beyond. All of them are larger than life figures.

The story of evolution may be the greatest story never told.

So let's have the debate. Let protagonists from each side write chapters in science textbooks. Let them debate in front of the kids.

You know what? I think the religios are bluffing. I think they would never dare to submit their "holy" texts to the kind of scrutiny that would entail.

But if they do, BRING IT ON.*

Let's show the kids what science is REALLY about.

*Yes, I do know the unfortunate history of that phrase. But in this case it is apposite.

Steven... you are presenting a very unidimensional straw man.

"Fundamentalist Christians".. according to what you wrote

"REJECT evolution through natural selection"

err..no.

What they reject.. is the idea that life 'spontaneously came into being'
which is a speculative projection BACK from a limited observable process.
Such a projection requires 'faith' because there is not a shred of evidence that life just 'happened'.. there IS a lot of wild speculation..there is 'interpetation of available facts' and conjecture.. hypothesis etc.. but there is no firm evidence which can be repeated scientifically showing the inTELLIGENT life.. just ...'happened'.

In fact..the opposite is the case. The classic moment of irony for science was when some of them declared:

"We have confirmed that if Dark Energy exists, it would mean that a power outside of space and time HAD to be the originator of all that is, but because that suggests a Creator.. we have to reject the idea of Dark Energy, thus..it does not exist" (words to that effect)

Within a week or 2.. Dark Energy had been scientifically confirmed.

"woops"

I doubt there are many even among fundy Christians who would deny that species adapt through natural selection.
I think there are many who reject the idea that 'new species' can emerge in this manner. A dog is not going to become a mammoth through natural selection kind of thing.
I'm a bit out of the loop re the current state of research, so won't make any firm statement.

I'm just challenging your claim that fundy Christians (and Muslims) reject natural selection and evolution to the extent that it is verifiable in terms of species "adaptation"....

Since then the evidence in support of Darwin's brilliant insight has grown exponentially. I fail to understand how anyone viewing the evidence dispassionately can reject evolution through natural selection.
Stevenlmeyer,
agree, ! think it's not so much rejecting the evidence, it's all about not wanting to see the truth. It's happening all around us this evolution of avoidence. The evolution of stupidity is now unstoppable. look at the evolution of injustice. Not nice at all, but evolution nevertheless. I wouldn't be at all surprised if humans started to evolve with long necks so that they can adapt easier to sticking their heads in the sand & play ostrich. Imagine all these people standing there with their rears high out of the sand & the gays exploiting the situation. A new specie evolving ? I think the evolution of at least one of the two species is already well advanced.

Interesting that Steven nominates Christian and Muslim fumdamentalists as rejecting Darwinian evolution in favour of creationism, but he doesn't mention Haredi Jewish creationism.

Don't the three major Abrahamic mythologies all share the same creation myths?

Dunno what all this has to do with 9/11, but anyway..

Everything evolves, no one can deny that much. What blows my mind is that Darwin's groupies nor the God Squad come up with a definitive answer on where it ALL came from. What WAS before the big bang, where did that matter come from?. Explosions can't happen out of absolute nothing. It's a rhetorical question, don't bother.

Not everything evolves....the zionists' talmud and other religious texts don't.
While all other religions carry on healthily debating these things and attempting to reconcile the religious texts with the Theory of Evolution, the jewish supremacists continue to push the barrow that jews should not inter-breed but everyone else should. They deny everyone legal immigration to Israel unless they can prove jewish ancestry and yet they promote mass immigration and multiculturalism in all other nations they have a strangle-hold on via their control of mass media, global corporations and hence western governments.
Global warming is just another created issue used to manipulate our behaviour.
Marx created communism to create warfare. Marx was a zionist. Hitler could see this but has been portrayed as a mad-man, so no one can hear his messages now.
I'll be impressed if this post is allowed.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Boaz.

You accuse Steven of building a strawman (which he isn't) and then proceed to build a number of your own.

The argument against abiogenesis is not an argument against the evolution of species.

The argument about "dark matter" has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject. Whoops.

You say fundies don't reject evolution through natural selection and proceed to tell us through nonsense statements (ie dog to mammoth) that they do. The fact that evolutionary scientists would say the same thing, ie a dog won't become a mammoth, does not support your argument, because the reasoning behind it is different.

MAAAAAATE, read some of the evolutionary texts before commenting and then respond on topic. Thanks.

Dear Steven,

When scientists speak of the "theory" of evolution, they are referring not to "whether" evolution takes place, but rather "how" the process can be explained.

Darwin's theory was perhaps best summarized by the sociologist Herbert
Spencer in his phrase "the survival of the fittest." Darwin called this process "natural selection."

Like all scientific knowledge, evolutionary theory is being continually evaluated and refined as new evidence comes to light.

Some modern theorists, for example, argue that new species sometimes form when a natural barrier, like a river or mountain range, permanently splits off part of an animal or plant population from the rest of its species. Over countless generations, minor variations in the genetic composition of the two groups may become magnified, particularly if each is subject to different environmental pressures or opportunities. Over time, the two groups may become so genetically distinct that they can no longer inter-breed - meaning that they become different species.

Some modern paleontologists, too, claim that evolution sometimes happens much faster than Darwin envisioned. The fossil evidence often shows new species evolving quite rapidly - perhaps in as few as tens or hundreds of thousands of years - and then persisting over a much longer time with only minor changes.

These evolutionary "spurts" are probably caused by relatively sudden changes in the species' environments - for example, by the spread of deserts, the shrinking of ice caps, the rise and fall of sea levels, the extinctions of old predators or food resources and the appearance of new ones, the effects of volcanos, and perhaps even catastrophic impacts of large comets or meteors on the earth's surface.

What of our own origins?

There are still long gaps in our knowledge of our own origins. Peering into our ancestral past is like peering into a landscape shrouded in mist. The mist, parts periodically to reveal the dim outlines of creatures like us yet not like us, but growing more recognizably human with the passage of time.

It would be interesting to look into our distant future and see - did we survive? And how well?

Yo! Bugsy.... who the heck were you ripping into there mate.. I thought it was me for a moment but then.. what you said didn't connect.

I did not deny 'evolution by natural selection' (meaning evolution of existing species into better adapations of that species for the environment it faces over time)

I denied that the theory can be used to project BACK to the wild faith based assumption, of spontaneous emergence of life without an intelligent Creator.

Notice Foxy's terminology "some paleantologists 'believe'"... some scientists 'claim'.... others 'think'.....

One would 'think'..if such a theory has an microgram of credibility, that at least some evidence of 'creation start ups' would have been discovered on mars.. but.. sorry.. no luck..gong...buzzz..

It was dark ENERGY..not dark matter..

I'll guarantee that if I did this :)

"I BELIEVE IN ADAPTATION OF SPECIES BY NATURAL SELECTION"
"YES..I REALLY DO..."
"SERIOUSLY.. I DO"

..... some clown among you will come back and blather:

WHYYY do you fundies 'reject evolution' ? .. what a joke :)

".....Hitler could see this but has been portrayed as a mad-man, so no one can hear his messages now.
I'll be impressed if this post is allowed."
Posted by GI_Jane, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 8:06:22 AM

Trust me dear, ANYTHING is allowed on OLO. (Unless it is a parody of Australians which I wrote and submitted; and had rejected on racist grounds. Which is what I was after. The 'parody' was a test. AFTER it was rejected;-AFTER-; I submitted another load of racist drivel on those of darker skin; same result......., not much then choice really..).

I'm sorry I misunderstood Hitler. It's so irritating when heroes like that are so terribly misjudged..

then choice?? = choice then!

"One would 'think'..if such a theory has an microgram of credibility, that at least some evidence of 'creation start ups' would have been discovered on mars.. but.. sorry.. no luck..gong...buzzz."

Why? Are you suggesting that there's a theory that if Earth has conditions amenable to life, then all the other planets in our solar system should too. If so, can you cite it? Darwin certainly said nothing of the sort and I can't believe any other credible scientist would, as it's a ludicrous theory.

In fact, there is no piece of evidence so far found in the entire universe that disproves the theory of evolution. If there were, the theory would come crashing down.

Evolution does not seek to explain the origins of the big bang. As Foxy so eloquently says, it explains the "how", not the "why". If you believe your religion does explain the "why", Boaz, good for you. You are unfortunately wrong, but I'd fight for your right to make that mistake.

Teaching kids intelligent design as part of the science curriculum would be an absolute abomination against science and reason and truth. They can, of course, safely learn all the theories in RE.

"The religios say they want equal time for their crackpottery.

Maybe we should give them equal time.

The story of evolution is not only great science; it's a compelling human tale. For sheer drama and wonderment it eclipses anything to be found in any so-called "holy book." The cast of characters ranges from the 17th Century monk, Nicholas Steno to 2006 Nobel laureate Andrew Fire and beyond. All of them are larger than life figures.

The story of evolution may be the greatest story never told.

So let's have the debate. Let protagonists from each side write chapters in science textbooks. Let them debate in front of the kids.

You know what? I think the religios are bluffing. I think they would never dare to submit their "holy" texts to the kind of scrutiny that would entail.

But if they do, BRING IT ON."

That is a new suggestion that I haven't seen before from an atheist. Generally atheists fight tooth and nail to prevent the debate being aired in front of the kids. Indeed, subject to your attitude toward evolution and religion, what you are suggesting is something often suggested (albeit in reverse) by the relevant "religios". They claim that atheists object to such a comparison because they are scared to compare what "religios" consider good science with what they consider bad science. You by contrast claim that "religios" are bluffing and a comparison should be made to show them up.

I wonder if your viewpoint will catch on.

Vanilla, I'm sorry you fail to realise that intelligent design principles are already taught in University under architecture, mechanics, physics, bio-mechanics and others. Principles of design in natural physics give guidance to man's creativity in all sorts of fields. Science has developed most things from observation of already created principles of design. Very little in these fields are learned in RE.

You said, "Teaching kids intelligent design as part of the science curriculum would be an absolute abomination against science and reason and truth. They can, of course, safely learn all the theories in RE."

CJ Morgan,

You raise an interesting point. Odd as it seems I'd never given much thought to Jewish teaching on evolution. Most of the Jews I associate with are secular and have no objections to evolution. I know orthodox Jews but cannot recall ever having discussed evolution with any of them. When we have discussed religion evolution has never come up.

It turns out you are correct. Some orthodox sects have ideas about evolution that are as wacky as any I've heard expressed by Muslim and Christian Fundamentalists.

Well spotted.

Boazy, ok matter/energy, whatever, same point - no difference.

You are now arguing nonsense with trying to differentiate your "adaptation of species through natural selection" from SPECIATION. You have made it quite clear though that you do not believe in SPECIATION, ie. the diversification of species through time. Which is required for evolution from simple single celled organisms through to distant prehistoric mammals and then to humans and other modern organisms. Abiogenesis is not required for this theory to be valid and workable in a scientific sense, and while many researchers are investigating the mechanics of such a phenomenon, the theory of evolution (speciation) through natural selection can stand up without having to explain that particular part. Scientists still don't know yet how many genes/proteins are minimally required to make a viable prokaryotic cell (which makes any ID calculations nothing more than bad guesswork), but they are currently working on it through synthetic chromosomes and gene "knockout" technology etc.

There is a tremendous amount of evidence that shows increasing complexity of organisms and their changing through time through the fossil record. What there isn't evidence for is that dogs/mammoths/horses/whatever existed all at once in an earlier time (like the dinosaur dominated periods) and just changed a little through to modern times, such as you are suggesting with "adaptation".

Either way, you had better brush up on the subject if you are going to attempt to debate about it, MAAAATE. Because it is patently obvious that you you know a great deal more about ancient middle-eastern tribal stories than you do about modern science. In fact, I would wager that you probably don't even know how a "species" is defined, and I don't mean by a dictionary.

"Vanilla, I'm sorry you fail to realise that intelligent design principles are already taught in University under architecture, mechanics, physics, bio-mechanics and others. Principles of design in natural physics give guidance to man's creativity in all sorts of fields. Science has developed most things from observation of already created principles of design. Very little in these fields are learned in RE."

No need to be for false apologies Philo - I'm happy to hear whatever evidence you have. What intelligent design principles are used in those arenas? And in what way are the principles specific to intelligent design, rather than just examples of man borrowing from designs found in nature? Or are you arguing that finding designs in nature *is* intelligent design?

Bugsy,

A very nice concise explanation of speciation.

Remarkably, we can actually see speciation in action among cichlids in African great lakes as this New Scientist piece describes.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution/mg16121768.100

These are the kinds of exciting discoveries that I think would ignite the imaginations of kids and kindle a love of science.

Mjpb

I doubt my viewpoint will catch on. Here are some reasons.

--There is a prevailing theory that we should not "confuse" kids. It supposedly makes them feel "insecure." Now I happen to think that sometimes it's a good idea to confuse kids. Life is often confusing and dealing with confusion is an important skill.

--The so-called "science" of the religios is almost too easy to demolish. In the end you will have to say "you would not even be attempting this sort of contorted rationalisation if you weren't trying to prove that your holy book was compatible with science." BOAZ is a perfect example.

--How many religios would truly accept a no holds barred debate about their holy book vs science? Would they really allow you to dis – as they would see it – their holy book in front of their kids? Think Muhammad cartoons.

--There would be a fear that it could lead to religious strife in schools. Actually I think it would teach all kids that people have differing points of view and you have to respect their right to differ even as you think the beliefs themselves are loony tunes. This would be an especially valuable lesson for religios.

--Many science teachers doubt their ability to manage the emotions that would be aroused. In the US they also, to be blunt, fear what I can only call a fundamentalist Christian mob mentality.

But I still think it's a great idea

I beg to differ on one point raised earlier:
Given time and the right environmental forces, a dog could well evolve into a Mammoth.

Actually Horus, it would only be something resembling a mammoth, not an actual mammoth.

Besides which, it'd take more than one dog, surely ;)

A short history of evolution:

In the beginning there was a balanced eco-system. Theistic & non-theistic forces were largely in balance . Geometry/Mathematics, early theories of evolution ,atomic theory and even machines were developed. The cornerstone for this eco-system was experimentation & open discussion

However, a deterioration in the environment allowed theism to come to dominate .And much of the earlier thinking was lost or sidelined . The cornerstone for the bastardised eco-system was divine revelation & adherence to authority

After many centuries the environment began to recover & non-theistic thinking, including evolutionary theories began to re-emerge .

The new thinking was better suited to explaining the why & wherefores of the world, and spread. The previous dominant theistic thinking began to see its territories diminish . Now under stress from competition, theism fractured into a variety of smaller sub-species ,each with its own niche . So dire had things become that some areas of the world had to be set a side as national reserves for theistic thinking –where no other thought forms were allowed .

What theism remains outside such reserves has benefited from gene-drift from non-theistic thought . Whatever name it goes by, theism today is largely two parts non-theistic-humanism and one part theism. [ though it has to be said – there has been some gene-drift the other way as well, with the new climate-change theology claiming a non-theism status but resembling theism]

1) No offence intended but, it is hard to buy intelligent design, when one
sees life processes producing:
I) Factory-seconds (the two headed, the six armed models )
ii) Inconsistent quality (some models last <50 years others >100), &
iii) Discontinued models (extinct species)

And such errors & inconsistencies keep sneaking through the intelligent
design quality control processes.

It is clearly not all, or even largely, the result of man-made interference:
drugs, environmental pollution or loose living - as some will no doubt
suggest -as these defects have been with us since day one & show up even
in the most virtuous of populations.

If such deficiencies continually showed up in human production systems you'd
be looking to sack either your design or quality control staff.

2) Bugsy,
Re the dog-mammoth proposition:
I'll resist the temptation to lower the tone by resorting to idioms like
"If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck ..."

However, while it is more likely that dogs might evolve to something
"similar to" a mammoth. Evolutionary theory does not preclude a second
coming (exact, even down to the last chromosome). It might be improbably
considering the range of possible outcomes, but it's within the realm of the
possible.

And it's happened before, 'compare the pair' Julia Gillard & the Wicked Witch of the West
- exact, even down to the last freckle...'But one will retire with a bigger super payout...
(Hopefully, straight after the next election!).
['Sorry' Julia Gillard... & Belly]

Many of the same people who claim that the concept of evolution is somehow flawed and unscientific have no problem with the notion that man was created directly from dirt.

Add the literal belief in a talking snake and damnation due to the consumption of fruit from a magical tree and it becomes obvious that there's simply no point seriously discussing matters of science with these people.

Will gravity next become "intelligent falling"?

Supposing man to be the highest intelligence on Earth and he gains his intelligence and wisdom from observing the reality in which he lives, then obviously a higher intelligence than man has designed the nature of reality. That is if intelligence is gained from learning of our reality.

Or is it that intelligence is independently inherent in the gene or in the human mind and we merely uses the reality, but do not learn a thing from the reality only that thinking is not part of the reality. That reality has no contribution to our intelligence. Or do we pose the Question that man is not intelligent and intelligence does not exist. Who said? How do we define intelligence?

If there was ever evidence of how some people just cannot 'get it', it was in that last post by philo. If you look at the context in which the word "intelligence" is used there, there is more than one definition, even in the same sentence! Ample avenues for ambiguity, but then I would expect nothing less really. How do you define intelligence? Indeed, a pertinent question. Perhaps you should use a different (less ambiguous) word when discussing different concepts.