Evolution - some questions

Wicknight wrote: »

It doesn't, but not accepting something can be due to not understanding it, which is what Dades actually said.

Looking at his post again I see that. Apologies, should have read it more carefully first time round.

HUNK wrote: »

*sigh

I like it. Perhaps a minor disclaimer - "science" has been wrong on occasion in the past, and continues to evolve, change, rethink and occasionally change "it's" mind.

An example even a music producer understands: the sub-atomic landscape looks nothing like the microcosmic rotating mini-solar systems I grew up learning about. Rather puzzling that it took so long for education in the sciences to catch up with reality on that one.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Everyone is welcome in the A&A forum, but if you're going to argue that the sky is purple then people will just highlight how wrong you are.

The colour of the sky is an excellent metaphor, since the sky isn't really blue anyway.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not saying science has not made and corrected errors. It would not be science if it did not. Science is a self correcting methodology. However the "error" you describe is not an error, but a teaching methodology that was designed that way for very specific teaching reasons.

Hmmm. You must have proof of this to be so definite. Where can one find this information? Quite fascinating if it's true.

music producer wrote: »

Hmmm. You must have proof of this to be so definite. Where can one find this information? Quite fascinating if it's true.

I am not aware of saying anything on this forum I do not have back up for or knowledge about.... or at least that is the ideal I aspire to. If I do not know what I am talking about, I stay silent except for asking questions. Would that this was a rule many more would follow

I would recommend if you are actually interested to read documents on the science curriculum in Ireland which you will find here:

Science curriculum - http://www.ncca.ie/uploadedfiles/Curriculum/Science_Curr.pdf

Science teacher guidelines http://www.ncca.ie/uploadedfiles/Curriculum/Science_Gline.pdf

You will also find this is true in other countries if you look at their curriculums and how they are taught and how they should be taught. And websites explaining how the atom should be taught such as these:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Childhood-Education/254482711.html

http://www.ehow.com/how_7479802_teach-atomic-structure.html

However as I said this is not limited solely to the structure of the atom. We teach in this way right across many of the subjects in our schools. A simplified model of something, or description is given at the lower levels and as the child progresses through to higher levels of education the models/descriptions are built opon, refined, described deeper and so on.

This is simply how education is done. We rarely teach the full truth to young kids at the outset, but lead them to it through iterations, each more complicated, accurate and specialised than the last.

So no this was not an "error" you were taught, it is simply how we teach children about the atom. Likely if you pick up a text book from the age you were when you learned it today... the current editions of the same books you used STILL have the same "orbital" structure in it and it is still being taught to children. This is because it is not an "error" and will not be "corrected". It is because this is how we have chosen to teach the atom to children.

Also another thing worth nothing is that even when you learn more about the atom in later education, the Orbital Model still has its uses and is never entirely disregarded. There are mathematically useful reasons for representing the Atom in this function and even the people who study right up to the pinnacle of our current knowledge on the subject will still have some use for the "Bohr" model as it is called. So for this reason ALSO what you were taught is not an "error" but a very functional working model of the atom that has many uses.

The final link worth reading is to a paper called "Why we should teach the Bohr model and how to teach it effectively"

Sarky wrote: »

I was originally trying, perhaps unsuccessfully, to demonstrate that one can accept things like evolution to be good models for reality without ever having heard of whoever's making noise about it right now.

That I can not disagree with. The issue would be however that people all too often come by that "knowledge" through the media and then go away thinking they have a working knowledge of the scientific subject itself. Alas the media rarely highers actually qualified scientists to be their science editors and the "knowledge" people think they have all too often tends to be a media bastardisation of the truth.

Sarky wrote: »

I'd never even heard the name Dawkins until I started browsing this forum

That is kind of what I meant when I said forming an opinion on a person from second hand information. I recognise there are some very obnoxious and rude people in all communities, including the atheist ones. If rude people are quoting Dawkins I can see how you might ascribe the rudeness to Dawkins.

However it would be an error to make such a leap. For example if someone was beating me up and they said "Obama" each time they landed a punch, I would be foolish to come away thinking Obama a violent man.

FWIW i too expected Dawkins to be foaming out of the mouth and yelling angrily at religious people at every opportunity based on how he had been described in sections of the media.
Was shocked to see he is actually a very softly spoken, quiet voiced and charming man.
"What, you mean this is the little guy who caused all the trouble????"

Dades wrote: »

Evolution doesn't concern itself with Supreme Beings - it explains the origin and diversity of the millions of species on earth. Not other planets, or stars or any Big Bang theory. And it's only contradictory to literal religious accounts such as Genesis which why even the catholic church begrudgingly accept it.

Can I suggest that you are approaching evolution from completely the wrong direction? It's a scientific answer not a theological one.

There is an interesting explanation how 7 days = 15 billion years (give or take) which most creationists on discussion boards aren't familiar with - if they would consider the possibility that Genesis doesn't have to be literally true in the traditional sense, they could have their 7 days and 15 billion years too.

Discussion forums often attract those with the most inelegant ways of expressing themselves.

One of the reasons I started posting here is that I have a diminishing respect for Dawkins, who seems to relish opportunities to dismantle lesser intellects from the creationist/intelligent design camp, but sometimes shrinks from serious opponents, as even some fellow atheists have noted.

music producer wrote: »

Discussion forums often attract those with the most inelegant ways of expressing themselves.

One of the reasons I started posting here is that I have a diminishing respect for Dawkins, who seems to relish opportunities to dismantle lesser intellects from the creationist/intelligent design camp, but sometimes shrinks from serious opponents, as even some fellow atheists have noted.

I hope you're not including muppets like WLC or Dembski in that group.

music producer wrote: »

Which leads me to ask if there are any IDers that you do respect.

None spring to mind, especially not the ones in Prison like Kent Hovind.

I am not sure on what level I would be expected to respect them.

Plenty of Catholics and Christians I respect though. I would listen to Kenneth Miller talk about Evolution V Creationism any day before Dawkins for example. I reckon if all the religious people on the planet were more like Miller there would hardly even be an Atheist forum here or an Atheist Ireland organisation.