Just the facts, buddy

Here is a letter published in the Lakeland Ledger today feeding the “debate” over evolution this newspaper and its readers like to keep alive.

Regarding a recent letter concerning evolution and education, the writer concluded her remarks by suggesting that one consider the difference between science and faith. Science verses faith is not the issue, what ought to be discussed is science verses fact. “If an idea cannot be tested in a manner that yields reproducible results then it simply is not part of science.” So says Tefil and Hazen, authors of “The Sciences: An Integrated Approach,” a textbook promoting evolution.

Do we have the reproducible results to prove evolution? If evolution is such an obvious fact, then where are the facts? I see theories and hypothesis, and opinions, from so-called experts, but no reproducible results. The fact is, we have never observed or proved in any way that all life “evolved” from a single common ancestor. Using the scientist definition of science, evolution does not qualify as a science.

In truth, evolutionists have no facts to argue. They adopt a position that “my scientist says it, so it must be true.” In this, they have simply exchanged the black robe of a religious figure for the white robe of a scientist and accept another’s interpretation instead of insisting that facts be brought forward.

If one really believes in evolution, I respect that. I just want people to stop the hypocrisy of deriding faith in the Bible while insisting that we accept their faith in evolution. In every consideration, evolution is a religion, and ought to be removed from our school system on the basis of separation of church and state.

LEON JENNINGS
Lakeland

I wonder if the textbook Jennings quoted might, just might, have some of those facts related to evolution buried in there somewhere? Unfortunately, I don’t have a copy of the book, but according to its website, there is a whole chapter on evolution.

Chapter 25 Evolution, includes significantly updated and enhanced coverage on the origin of life (especially chemical evolution), creationism and intelligent design, and hominid evolution.

Perhaps the book doesn’t cover the subject satisfactorily, though. That’s OK, because there is this wonderful thing called the Internet, which is full of useful information.

Since Jennings doubts that evolution is even science, let’s start right there. Some educated folks at Tufts University offer a helpful page called “Predictions – Is Evolution Science?”

PBS has an amazing, comprehensive site about evolution with a section just for students. Jennings could benefit from an online lesson there called “Evidence for Evolution WebQuest.” Heck, there is an entire library on just evidence for evolution. And one last shoutout to PBS: if reading isn’t your thing, then this short video about evidence/predictions might help.

Need more? OK, here is an article in the Washington Post titled “New Analyses Bolster Central Tenets of Evolution Theory.” And here is an article in National Geographic asking “Was Darwin Wrong?”

We can get specific if you want. Carl Zimmer wrote a great article published in National Geographic titled “A Fin is a Limb is a Wing; How Evolution Fashioned its Masterworks.” Shame on me if I don’t mention the University of California Museum of Paleontology’s Understanding Evolution website.

There are these crazy places called museums out there, too. The American Museum of Natural History is a well respected intitution with all sorts of evolution related exhibits. Want to stick to Florida? That’s fine. The Florida Museum of Natural History is pretty darn good too.

With any luck, Jennings will explore this treasure trove of evolution education I’ve provided. Evolution is a fascinating subject and can easily become the focus of some folks’ life’s work. Check out the these folks at the University of Florida, Florida State University, and University of Central Florida.

Does all of this answer your questions, Jennings?

Oh, and there is a second letter right under Jennings’. Anyone care to tackle that one? It’s a doozy!

About Brandon Haught

Communications Director for Florida Citizens for Science.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Just the facts, buddy

  1. James F says:

    To fully appreciate the writer’s ignorance of science, try mixing and matching:

    “In every consideration, heliocentrism is a religion, and ought to be removed from our school system on the basis of separation of church and state.”

    “In every consideration, atomic theory is a religion, and ought to be removed from our school system on the basis of separation of church and state.”

    “In every consideration, gravity is a religion, and ought to be removed from our school system on the basis of separation of church and state.”

    At least we can agree on the point that creationism has no place in a science class.

  2. PatrickHenry says:

    The letter-writer quotes someone (perhaps accurately, perhaps not) who said: “If an idea cannot be tested in a manner that yields reproducible results then it simply is not part of science.”

    Lots of science-deniers get hung up on “reproducible results,” as if we’re supposed to reproduce the past movement of the continents, or the creation of islands in the Pacific. Depending on how that phrase is interpreted, it could rule out all the so-called historical sciences: geology, climatology, archaeology, cosmology, etc. Biological evolution is one of the historical sciences.

    But the evidence those sciences work with is readily observable, and so are the mechanisms proposed to explain the evidence. They also lend themselves to various predictions — such as the absence of the proverbial Precambrian rabbit.

    The more I think about the quoted sentence, it probably refers to Popper’s dictum about science being falsifiable, which rules out supernatural ideas. So if the word “reproducible” is swapped out for “testable” it would be okay.

  3. Brandon Haught says:

    Sheesh, Patrick, there you go getting my curiosity all revved up! I searched for the “reproducible results” quote and was surprised to find a pdf of the entire first chapter of the book: http://www.wiley.com/college/sc/trefil/ch01.pdf

    The quote in full is:
    “Scientists discover laws that describe how nature works by performing reproducible observations and measurements. Every idea in science must be subject to this kind of testing. If an idea cannot be tested in a manner that yields reproducible results, even if that idea is correct, then it simply isn’t a part of science.”

    Make note of the “reproducible observations and measurements” part in there. Jennings kinda overlooked that bit.

  4. PatrickHenry says:

    I’m shocked. Shocked! In case you all haven’t yet learned the basic lesson for dealing with those who want to “teach the controversy,” it’s this: Always check their quotes. Always.

  5. S.Scott says:

    You go get em’ Brandon! 😉

  6. S.Scott says:

    Speaking of science education … Remember http://bit.ly/Freshwater ?
    This is a must read update. He gave students extra credit for visiting AIG and gave handouts titled “Survival of the Fakest”

    (Here’s to hoping the link works)

Comments are closed.