Evolution research paper

[-Demosthenes-]

I'm doing a research paper about why evolution should be taught in schools, and ID should not. I've got it mostly planned out, and I've written most of my rough draft, and I was wondering if anyone had some good suggestions.

[swansont]

It would help to know what you've already covered.

[-Demosthenes-]

Sorry about that, it was late when I posted that.

 

I went through the dover case, Chris Colby's "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology" from Talk Origins:

The theory of evolution and common descent were once controversial in scientific circles. This is no longer the case. Debates continue about how various aspects of evolution work. For example, all the details of patterns of relationships are not fully worked out. However, evolution and common descent are considered fact by the scientific community.

Scientific creationism is 100% crap. So-called "scientific" creationists do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data. Their ideas are based on religious dogma, and their approach is simply to attack evolution. The types of arguments they use fall into several categories: distortions of scientific principles ( the second law of thermodynamics argument), straw man versions of evolution (the "too improbable to evolve by chance" argument), dishonest selective use of data (the declining speed of light argument) appeals to emotion or wishful thinking ("I don't want to be related to an ape"), appeals to personal incredulity ("I don't see how this could have evolved"), dishonestly quoting scientists out of context (Darwin's comments on the evolution of the eye) and simply fabricating data to suit their arguments (Gish's "bullfrog proteins").

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

 

I went through the Time magazine article "Evolution Wars," especially the part about the eye, and if it was created by random mutation.

 

I went through theories that were not evolution, paraphrasing parts of Dak's post in "Welcome, creationists, to Science Forum and Debate" http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13059

I was wondering I could do that, we can use "Bulletin board or newsgroup postings" as references, doesn't SFN fall under "Bulletin board"? Anyway, I didn't do much with that section, because I'm not sure that I can use it.

 

I went through some evidence on the University of California's "Understanding Evolution" web site, http://evolution.berkeley.edu/. (Fossil record, specifically beluga and ancestor nostril position on the skull, homology, most vertebrates have humerus, radius, and ulna, the reason for vestigial organs/structures, similarities between all cells, and an experiment that show a guppy population evolution).

 

I went thought the whole flying spaghetti monster -ism thing. Then a cartoon found in the Washington Post entitled "Teach both Theories...Let the Kids Decide."

 

I discussed the Constitutionality and the morality of teaching religion in public school science classes. And that's pretty much it.

[PhDP]

There's something that, I think, should be said more often. Creationists often claim evolution, "neo-Darwinism", is dogmatic. But there are several debates about evolution right as we speak. The neutralist v. selectionist (neo-Darwinist) debate isn't over, and in my opinion the neo-darwinist are being crushed in that debate. There's also a debate about the importance of horizontal gene transfer (genes transferred from a species to another) and their impact of the theory of evolution. Evolutionary biologists aren't holding neo-darwinism as a messiah and "Darwinism" is certainly not equal to "evolutionary biology".

 

Also I think one of the best argument against teaching creationism is from the testimony of Fuller defending ID. He agree the scientific community doesn't accept intelligent design as science, but he say ID might be the next scientific revolution and that, while it's not recongnised as science, it might be science one day and it's the only real opposition to the modern synthesis (which is false, btw). He is quite embarrassed when the lawyer ask him if we have to teach potential revolution to high school student, it's absurd. You cannot teach to high school students about all the potential "scientific revolution", a fortiori when there's more religion than science in those so-called "revolution".

[Mokele]

One thing you should probably add is the definition of science (testable, falsifiable predictions of a hypothesis), and how ID does not fit that definition. IMHO, that's be a pretty good starting or ending point.

[-Demosthenes-]

Hey, thanks guys!

[-Demosthenes-]

It didn't turn out as well as I had hoped. I got a B+.

 

Next to my paragraph explaining what ID is the reader wrote: "It's more than that."

 

Next to Chris Colby's quote from Introduction to Evolutionary Biology,"...However, evolution and common descent are considered fact by the scientific community," the reader wrote "One experts opinion does not establish it as fact."

 

Written next to my example of the dolphin evolution from pakicetids the reader wrote "(Micro-, not Macro- evolution)." From the land mammal Pakicetus to the marine mammal beluga whale is "mico-" evolution? Moses.

 

Homology, vestigial organs, and cell theory was dismissed, "Or had a common creator," and "A lot depends on your paradigm, doesn't it?"

 

When I quoted the Constitution (the establishment clause) the reader wrote that I should "quote the full text." because this causes me to "make a fallacious argument."

 

I said that there is the same amount of evidence for the spaghetti monster as there is for ID, the reader writes "Ridiculous! This argument is based on emotion not on objectivity."

 

It ended with the words: "It's obvious that you're not well informed on intelligent design, it it's impossible for you to be objective and give it a fair hearing. You're all to obvious emotional bias detracts significantly from you credibility (Also the quality of you sources)."

[AzurePhoenix]

Wow... just... wow.

[-Demosthenes-]

After ap bio, and completely clepping out of natural sciences I obviously don't know what I'm talking about...

[bascule]

Doesn't sound like that paper was graded very objectively... more like a teacher trying to convince himself that ID isn't a crock of shit

[starbug1]

It didn't turn out as well as I had hoped. I got a B+.

 

Next to my paragraph explaining what ID is the reader wrote: "It's more than that."

 

Next to Chris Colby's quote from Introduction to Evolutionary Biology' date='"...However, evolution and common descent are considered fact by the scientific community," the reader wrote "[u']One[/u] experts opinion does not establish it as fact."

 

Written next to my example of the dolphin evolution from pakicetids the reader wrote "(Micro-, not Macro- evolution)." From the land mammal Pakicetus to the marine mammal beluga whale is "mico-" evolution? Moses.

 

Homology, vestigial organs, and cell theory was dismissed, "Or had a common creator," and "A lot depends on your paradigm, doesn't it?"

 

When I quoted the Constitution (the establishment clause) the reader wrote that I should "quote the full text." because this causes me to "make a fallacious argument."

 

I said that there is the same amount of evidence for the spaghetti monster as there is for ID, the reader writes "Ridiculous! This argument is based on emotion not on objectivity."

 

It ended with the words: "It's obvious that you're not well informed on intelligent design, it it's impossible for you to be objective and give it a fair hearing. You're all to obvious emotional bias detracts significantly from you credibility (Also the quality of you sources)."

 

Tough break man. Did you argue any of your points? I would have done until he/she raised it to at least an A-.

 

(Also the quality of you sources)."

 

How would your teacher know this? There was obviously more than one valid source. Your grading was more objective than your writing. Could it have been more leaning toward the grammatical errors?

[-Demosthenes-]

Tough break man. Did you argue any of your points? I would have done until he/she raised it to at least an A-.

 

I'm still in high school, so most of the college courses I can get are through distance learning (and things like that). So I actually mailed this paper in, it would be harder to protest my grade through the mail

 

Could it have been more leaning toward the grammatical errors?

 

That's possible, I had a few I suppose. But most of what the reader wrote on my paper said that I didn't' know what I was talking about

 

Meh, B+.