Based on the discrepancy between the radiometric and creationist dating techniques, Mastropaolo creates a "calibration equation" that adjusts radiometric estimates so that "1. Once calibrated to that standard, Earth's age changes from 4. The National Academy of Sciences maintains that rejecting the evidence regarding the age of the Earth "would mean rejecting not just biological evolution but also also fundamental discoveries of modern physics, chemistry, astrophysics, and geology.
He says the resulting range passes the test for " objective, valid, reliable, and calibrated " science. A literal reading of Genesis entails that humans and all animals were created "genetically perfect. Consequently, life on Earth is undergoing devolution — caused by increasing amounts pollutants in the air, water, and soil — instead of evolution.
There are no data. Creation science hasn't fared well in U. In the case McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education , a federal court declared that "creation science" is not actually a science. Nevertheless, Mastropaolo is confident that he can convince a judge to disregard science pertaining to the theory of evolution.
We want to flesh that out [and] put it before people so they can understand it. A June Gallup poll found that 46 percent of Americans believe the literal interpretation of Genesis. For you. Here are some examples for scientists and science teachers. They are stronger there because they have the numbers, are vocal, and have more direct access to those teaching evolution. This is why it should be no surprise to learn that local schools and teachers can come under tremendous pressure.
Teachers find it safer not to teach it. School administrators find it safer not to encourage it. School boards find it safer not to insist upon it. And textbook publishers therefore find it financially prudent not to mention it, or if they do treat it, to play it down. The action needed here is strong support for teachers, administrators, and others who see the value in adequate coverage of evolution.
Teachers themselves need refresher courses in the current controversies within science, particularly punctuated equilibria, cladistics, and sociobiology. They also need instruction in more effective and comprehensive ways to teach science.
One thing that I have provided in the past is effective answers to the standard creationist arguments against evolution.
Educators find it useful. Other sources of such information are numerous books that respond to creationism. In sum, there is plenty of resource material available for any science teacher or layperson who needs to know how to answer creationist arguments.
But, besides answers to creationist arguments against evolution, one also needs responses to creationist arguments about law and public policy. This came up when the Milwaukee Public Museum, after announcing its planned dinosaur exhibit, came under attack by creationists. The then curator, Mack West, phoned me for advice. I provided a lot of information, but he deserves the credit for the originality and effectiveness of his response.
But Mack West pointed out that if that argument were valid, the museum ought to fire all the scientists and just hire exhibit builders. Then the museum could run a newspaper poll every year where the public could vote for the exhibits it wanted built. Options could include astrology, the Bermuda Triangle, and the search for Atlantis.
And the museum would no longer be devoted to scholarship, but to popular culture. Needless to say, Mack West won the day and the integrity of the museum was maintained. Teachers, librarians, and school board members need to be prepared to offer similar arguments when creationists take action against them. The public, if this is indeed their true opinion in a community, is not always aware of what is at stake, the constitutional issues involved, or even what creation-science really is.
To effectively combat creationism and improve science education at all levels requires an alliance of scientists, science teachers, clergy, politicians, business people, parents, students, textbook writers, and concerned taxpayers. Business people are especially important because it is their companies that will have to hire the scientific illiterates that a pressured school system graduates.
Obviously, it is not in their interest to stand idly by while this controversy rages. Ross Perot no political endorsement implied is one business person who took an active interest in the improvement of science education. When he saw what happened to academic test scores in the state of Texas after a decade of creationist influence on the state Board of Education, he got involved.
But scientific organizations should especially care. Low emphasis on quality science education means less people to do the scientific work of tomorrow. College and university professors have a stake in this every time they must teach a student the basics he or she should have learned in high school. If you are a member of a scientific organization that has not issued an official statement on the creation-evolution controversy, you should encourage your organization to take action.
At that time, many arguments were given against doing this. One was was that taking such a position was dogmatic, unscientific, and closed-minded. But is it dogmatic, unscientific, and closed-minded to state that there is no supportive scientific evidence for something when such a statement is true?
Thanks for asking! Interesting theology. Decent evolutionary biologists support neither intelligent design nor panspermia. There are literally thousands of transitional fossils — ones that show features in common with distinct later species. I like Tiktaalik the best, an ugly brute with some fishy gills, land-lubbing lungs, and some bits that were in between a wrist joint connecting to fins.
Yes, well spotted. Clever eh? Do all you guys have beards? Evolution is a fact: species change over time. Even Ken Ham acknowledges this.
Evolution by Natural Selection is a theory in the scientific sense , meaning a set of testable, predictive structures and ideas that explain the observed facts. Wait, what? Who said that? Science is a way of knowing stuff. Mutations that add or change function? Increased genetic diversity in a population? There are loads if you can be bothered to look.
To have a good time. All the time. Here, let me Google that for you, unusually shaven man. Wikipedia lists at least nine Autralopithecus afarensis specimens. Seek and ye shall find. Someone said that, can't remember who. The evidence for it is overwhelming. And no one has yet. It is amazing!
0コメント