I think in the usual case, families are going to self-select into the curriculum, principally home school and private school.
The appearances of evolutionary mechanisms are found at every single level of biology, from biogeography to gross anatomy to individual DNA bases. It’s not as if we only see evolution on the outer surface of biology.
This is another important part of a high school biology class lesson on evolution, and on science in general. There are several independent lines of evidence that point to evolution. For example, there is absolutely no reason why phylogenies based on morphology and DNA sequences should produce similar results, and yet they do.
5 Likes
The problem emerges for people like Michael Behe who had (and still have) no axe to grind with universal common ancestry.
The issue is the emergence of new forms that don’t agree with sequence based phylogenetic methods across species for the simple reason that orphans and Taxonomically Restricted sequences have no ancestor. They sort of magically poofed into existence.
One can assume, as Behe does, there is an evolutionary progression, but then the progression needs miracles for the orphan systems. At that point, it is not much different from Progressive Creationism. Stephen Meyer and a few other ID-ists are Progressive Creationists.
I have no problem suggesting Progressive Creationism as a pedagogical or conceptual model as it does fit the data better than random mutation and selection.
In fact, I’ll suggest Progressive Creationism to my YEC creationist study as a pedagogical model, even though I know none of them (myself included) would regard this as God’s truth, but rather something in the right direction.
1 Like
Why would this be an issue for a theory where one if its bread and butter mechanisms is mutations that produce new DNA sequences?
Why are the known and natural processes of mutation incapable of producing these sequences? Why do you invoke miracles?
1 Like
That is not true. There is far stronger evidence.
3 Likes
Creationist Strawman Alert! 
4 Likes
Not at all. In fact, the data say just the opposite.
5 Likes
“Complex biological structures, such as the human eye, have been interpreted as evidence for a creator for over three centuries. This raises the question of whether random mutation can create such adaptations. In this article, we present an inquiry-based laboratory experiment that explores this question”
The way this is set forth, it looks as if the lesson plan is being undertaken with the intention of casting doubt upon an overtly religious claim. (If that’s not the intention, why is the religious claim mentioned at all?) But in public high school classes, there is supposed to be neutrality regarding religious claims. I would suggest that if this preamble were to get home to a parent, a parent could successfully sue in court to get this lesson plan forbidden, as a violation of church/state separation.
2 Likes
Disturbing from so many angles.
Doesn’t all science suffer from those defects? It seems that you would be forced to reject all science if you followed your argument, but of course you only apply it to the science that disagrees with your preconceptions.
1 Like
This isn’t true. Most taxonomically restricted genes are homologous to gees or non-genic sequences in closely related taxa. No miracles are required.
Category error. Progressive creation is an alternative to common descent, not to random mutation and selection. Nor does progressive creation fit the data, as it fails to explain nested hierarchy.
2 Likes
Most taxonomically restricted genes are homologous to gees or non-genic sequences in closely related taxa. No miracles are required.
I’m happy to pass your claim on to my creationist students, but I’ll add my critique as well. I’ll say something like, “sweat glands are homologous to mammary glands, therefore is it reasonable to believe one evolved from the other or from some common ancestral gland?”
So you’ll pass on the claim about the origins of taxonomically restricted genes, but not the evidence behind it - and then you’ll confuse your class by saying something that is completely irrelevant to TRGs.
I pity your poor students.
3 Likes
@Patrick, we can’t can reach everybody obviously. Yes, we are unabashedly creationist in that we see God as the creator, but we are also aiming to present consensus scientific concepts like evolution and climate change in a way that is consistent with sound Christian theology. I suspect many of the Nones would welcome this approach and be open to exploring a faith that doesn’t require them to reject science or weaponize it for apologetics purposes.
3 Likes
No, I have a few examples that don’t agree with what John is saying. They are deal breakers.
Nothing, I love it. We recommend it at BioLogos: https://biologos.org/resources/miller-levines-biology
2 Likes
That’s a good point. Roman Catholics and Mainline Protestants generally don’t have a problem accepting evolution. But that doesn’t mean they have thought about how science and faith fit together. Many schools have science class and then they have religion/Bible class, and students never think about how one relates to the other. But you are right, my wording suggests all Christians have the same mindset and that’s definitely not true.
3 Likes
Thanks @swamidass! Hope all is well with you these days.
2 Likes
@Kathryn_Applegate keep up the good work against the anti-evolution pseudo science of AiG and the non science of Discovery Institute’s ID like PS is doing. Dr. Collins and Dr. Swamidass are great examples of how outstanding science can be done by scientists who identify as Christians. If we all agree that evolutionary science is neither theistic nor atheistic, we should get along just fine.
3 Likes
I would certainly disapprove of using that part of the paper. I was more focused on the actual experiment.
2 Likes
I have to agree with Dawkins that Sal teaching evolutionary biology to children is a form of abuse. Who are these kids? What institution? When do you propose to begin?
And I suspect that your few, cherry-picked examples are themselves bogus.
4 Likes