(1) This piece shows one of the ways in which some questions remain unsettled:

In the 18th century European naturalists dubbed the wolves of Canada and the eastern U.S. Canis lycaon, because they seemed distinct from Canis lupus, the gray wolf of Europe and Asia. By the early 1900s North American naturalists had decided that they were actually gray wolves as well. But in the past few years Canadian researchers who have analyzed wolf DNA have come full circle. They argue that gray wolves only live in western North America. The wolves of Algonquin Provincial Park belong to a separate species, which they want to call C. lycaon once more.

Other wolf experts do not think there is enough evidence to split C. lupus into two species. And both sides agree that the identity of the Algonquin wolves has become far more murky thanks to interbreeding. Coyotes (another species in the genus Canis) have expanded east and have begun to interbreed with C. lycaon. Now a sizable fraction of these eastern coyotes carry wolf DNA, and vice versa. Meanwhile C. lycaon has been interbreeding with gray wolves at the western border of its range. So the Algonquin animals are not just mixing C. lycaon DNA with C. lupus DNA—they are also passing on the coyote DNA as well.

(2) Re: yesterday’s column, it might be worth stressing that there’s a difference between teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory and injecting religion into the science classroom. Religious debates belong in religion classes. Scientific debates belong in the science classroom. Among the latter, for instance, are questions about the strengths and weaknesses of Gould’s notions about spandrels. That’s entirely different from saying that “some people believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and scientists don’t really know if that’s so.“ Scientists do, and it isn’t.

James Atticus Bowden:

Here are numerous examples where one species became something else:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Larry Lanberg: Your answer is brilliant.  I love it.  I will borrow that line from now on.  Thanks.

I’m a Christian, but I’m not selling Creationism soap.  I have no clue how species showed up over and over on Earth.  I believe there is a Creator, but I have no idea of the science underneath His creation - the how.

The sum of micro evolutions is microevolution, not macro.

Other than the empirically testable observation on politicians, name one example of one species becoming another - ever.  It simply isn’t there.

So, teach that there is a hole in our knowledge - thus we have some theories, not laws - and encourage kids to go learn and discover.

“Name one example of macro-evolution where one species became something else.  Please name one where you have the species A and then the first change to another species.“

Whenever a politician takes office.

Mr. Bowden,

Wikipedia states that the notion that species change does not occur is rejected by “mainstream science” and they offer quotes to that effect under the heading of macroevolution.

That is not saying you are wrong. It is only saying that you can find all sides of the argument on the internet.

Creationists reject the argument that species change is just the sum total of a vast sum of micro evolutions, just as you say.

Seems kinda hard to believe there is no intelligent design in the universe. Seems easy though to believe that a tiger could evolve over millions of years very slowly from other big cats. Also easy to believe that if we extinct all the tigers they are gone the way of the Dodo bird or the passenger pigeon.

There are many examples of micro-evolution - change within a species.  But, name one example of macro-evolution where one species became something else.  Please name one where you have the species A and then the first change to another species.

Its been a long time since I have been in school. I do not know what they are teaching these days. But I like what Thomas Jefferson said about his ideas for the University, to paraphrase : He did not want a professor of theology at the University of Virginia.

And if you think it’s an isolated incident, think again. It’s part of a concerted effort to expoit the education establishments obsession with multicult “tolerence” indoctrination.

http://www.dawanet.com/methods/publicschool.dawapublic.asp

They’re so confident in the gullibility of our teachers that they openly advertise their intentions

Of course there’s religion in public school.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5830406.html

It just has to fit a political agenda.

Let us discuss the scandals of CT Woody, sheriff at the Richmond City Jail—you know the guy promising to un-do the (supposedly) corrupt practices of former sheriffs.

The guy who’s now being sued by several people for, among other things, racial discrimination. THE GUY who hired his own son for a deputy’s job there—starting the kid off at > $50,000. Which is far higher than what other deputies get. Keep in mind that Woody’s son had absolutely no prior experience.

The Times-Dispatch has purposefully concealed these shenanigans, in part, because Woody desires “not to be tried in the media.“

Funny—when he was running for sheriff he wanted to be tried in the media, didn’t he?

There are plenty of religious classes in parochial high schools and in college. Having the same in a public school would present a very sticky wicket.

How do you give equal time to every religion without proslyetizing or promoting one over the other ?

That is over and above the problem of mixing science with religion. Darn near impossible to teach both at the same time without confusing students and getting into apples and oranges discussions.

One reason of many why home schooling just snowballs in popularity and recognition.

It’s a good point that some issues in science are hard to resolve but others are not. You get the facts that are, not the facts that you want to have.

Could you teach the weaknesses of evolutionary theory and still remain scientific ? Yes. In practice, not sure how well that would work out.

In practice, you would probably have some kind of political correctness at work where teachers spend way too much time on creationism and place way too much emphasis simply so they are politically correct and have offended no one and have fully covered all bases at the risk of not properly educating on the facts.

Students would get the misimpression that a wide body of serious scientists accept creationism as plausible or even probable.

In a sense, it could possibly lead to dumbing down of science in order to placate religion.

Post Your Comments: