New missing link primate? (Ida)

[zoegirl]

One of the biggest problems wth fossils is that, despite these differences, we can never really know whether these were distinct species. COuld tey still interbreed? We can't know. That's probably one fo the most glarig issues.

ANother problem stll exists in whether mutations and other genetic changes can account for the different species. They will claim yes,of course, but the genetic changes we see are minor and it is up to extrapolation to extend the power of these mutations. So could these be different species. Of course....did they evolve or to what extend did they evovle? Locked in the past.

I will defeinitely agree with you, jlay, taht the naturalists need to be wary of drawing conclusions that cannot be made. And here their bias does show, I agree, in the willingness to make those conclusions.

[zoegirl]

Ahh, some interesting controversy continuing here!
http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/ ... edent.html

More on Ida: overblown claims and a worrying precedent
Now that the scientific details of Darwinius masillae are available for scrutiny by those who weren't given privileged advance access, some doubts are emerging. Not about the significance of the fossil per se -- it is a magnificent specimen and important -- but about the interpretation placed on it by the analysis team, and the hype that has surrounded the announcement.

There is a feeling out there that publication has been rushed, and that the data don't fully support the sweeping claims that are being made. As Henry Gee (@cromercrox), Nature's palaeontology editor, put it on Twitter:

When something has been dead for 47,000,000 years, you'd have thought that they'd have spent a little more time on it at this end.


The issue is explained well by the brilliant Laelaps: it is far from certain that the adapids, the group to which Ida belongs, are the ancestors of modern monkeys, apes and humans. The consensus view is that the adapids were an evolutionary dead end, and that anthropoids (monkeys etc) are the descendents of animals that looked more like modern tarsiers.

As outlined in the paper "Evolving Perspectives on Anthropoidea" (among others) included in the recent Anthropoid Origins volume, it presently appears that tarsiers and omomyids are the closest groups to anthropoids. This is based upon a combination of fossil, genetic, and morphological evidence. This makes the adapid primates, including Darwinius, a more distant side branch more closely related to living lemurs and lorises.

The team behind the Ida discovery are claiming that adapids like Darwinius are actually members of the haplorrhine group, which contains anthropoids like us and tarsiers. But as Laelaps says, their evidence for this is extremely limited:

By moving the adapids into the haplorrhine group they can then make the claim that anthropoids evolved from the adapid stem and not tarsiers or omomyids. The problem is that they are using just one genus, Darwinius, to change the placement of an entire group without using any cladistic analysis! This is not good science.

The bottom line is that the hypothesis that Darwinius is closer to anthropoids than tarsiers or omomyids does not have strong support. Even though the authors of the paper constructed a very simple cladogram they did not undertake a full, rigorous cladistic analysis to support their claims. I am baffled as to how they could stress the significance of this fossil without undertaking the requisite research to support their hypothesis.

In short, while Ida is an important fossil, she isn't all that. The authors haven't presented enough evidence to support their claims.

This would be an issue even if this discovery had been announced in the normal way. But it's especially serious given the publicity blitz behind Ida. As I blogged yesterday, a popular book, a documentary, a website and an exhibition have been launched on the back of this find, before it has received full scientific scrutiny. The interpretation of Jorn Hurum and his team may well be wrong. But their story is all that most people are going to hear.

You have to wonder, as did Karen James in a comment on my post yesterday, whether this research was deliberately rushed, and submitted to a journal (PLoS ONE) with a less rigorous pre-publication review system than Nature or Science, to fit with the media schedule. And why did the journal agree to go along with this?

I'm also concerned that a worrying precedent has been set here. PLoS ONE, like most journals, normally release their papers to journalists under embargo, to give them good time to prepare a story and consult independent experts. That didn't happen this time: I was shown a copy by the production company working with the scientists yesterday morning, but I wasn't allowed to take it away from their offices. Many other reporters didn't even have that luxury, seeing the paper only when it went live on the PLoS website at 3.30pm.

For media outlets that had bought the rights, such as the BBC, it was a different story -- full access, weeks or even months in advance. Is it really right that full embargoed access to important and controversial research findings should be restricted on the say-so of the authors, to media that best suit their publicity strategy? Especially when money has changed hands?

MH

An end-note: there was an unfortunate error in the graphic accompanying my piece in the paper. An early draft was printed by mistake. Darwinius masillae is not a direct ancestor of both lemurs/lorises and apes/monkeys. It seems to lie on the ape/monkey branch, after the last common ancestor of both groups, and it may well be a direct ancestor of nothing at all that exists today. It's being corrected online.

also

A fossil skeleton touted as a "revolutionary scientific find that will change everything" was unveiled today at a press conference in New York City. With Mayor Michael Bloomberg and filmmakers in attendance, an international team of researchers introduced the world to "Ida," the skeleton of a primate that, the team claims, may be a missing link between primitive primates and humans. But many experts aren't so enthusiastic. "It's an extraordinarily complete, wonderful specimen, but it's not telling us too much that we didn't know before," says paleoanthropologist Elwyn Simons of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.
Researchers have been trying to trace the origins of anthropoids--a group of higher primates that include apes, monkeys, and humans--for decades. The earliest undisputed fossils of anthropoids lived in Egypt between 32 million and 35 million years ago. In the past 15 years, researchers have found older fossils, including Eosimias, that lived 45 million years ago in China and India--and most researchers argue that these diminutive fossils either are the earliest anthropoids or are their close relatives. A few researchers, however, argue instead that anthropoids arose from a more primitive group of primates--so-called adapids.

This is the view proposed by paleontologist Jí¸rn Hurum of the Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo and paleontologist Philip Gingerich of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in a paper published today in PLoS One. For the past 2 years, the two have been part of a team of scientists that has secretly studied the 47-million-year-old juvenile fossil of Ida, named for Hurum's 6-year-old daughter. The squirrel-monkey size fossil is 95% complete and remarkably preserved, including the contents of her gut when she died. Although private collectors discovered the fossil in 1983, it was split in two. They sold one half to a museum in Wyoming, and a private collector held the other half until 2 years ago, when Hurum bought it for the museum in Oslo.

Using high-resolution computed tomography scans, the team analyzed the skeleton from the Messel quarry in Messel, Germany, where it was discovered. They found features in the face, teeth, and foot that suggested to them that Ida belongs to a group of adapids known as the Cercamoniinae--and that adapids belong in the superfamily (Haplorhini) that includes anthropoids (and humans) instead of the more primitive group that includes living lemurs (Strepsirrhines), where adapids have traditionally been placed. Specifically, they argue that Ida is not on the primitive lemur line because she lacks two key characteristics shared by lemurs: a grooming claw on her second toe and front teeth arranged into a toothcomb. Also, the vertical, spatula shape of her front teeth and a bone in her ankle called the talus are shaped like members of our branch of the primates. And that means adapids are the link between primitive primates and anthropoids--and, hence, the lineage leading to humans. "This is the first link to all humans," said Hurum at the press conference.

Many paleontologists are unconvinced. They point out that Hurum and Gingerich's analysis compared 30 traits in the new fossil with primitive and higher primates when standard practice is to analyze 200 to 400 traits and to include anthropoids from Egypt and the newer fossils of Eosimias from Asia, both of which were missing from the analysis in the paper. "There is no phylogenetic analysis to support the claims, and the data is cherry-picked," says paleontologist Richard Kay, also of Duke University. Callum Ross, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago in Illinois agrees: "Their claim that this specimen should be classified as haplorhine is unsupportable in light of modern methods of classification."

Other researchers grumble that by describing the history of anthropoids as "somewhat speculatively identified lineages of isolated teeth," the PLoS paper dismisses years of new fossils. "It's like going back to 1994," says paleontologist K. Christopher Beard of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who has published jaw, teeth, and limb bones of Eosimias. "They've ignored 15 years of literature."

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/co ... 2009/519/1



Good example of media hype, the debate between scientists, good sciece and bad science, and the many scientists who provide controversy. Despite the claims in the original news article, the authors do not have strong evdence fr their claim. This is what science should do, correct the conclusions of one another. Thankfully this is a good example of where they have leapt upon each other and corrected each other. They have examined the evidence and are not willing to give into a hyped theory (even though the current theory still supports evolution)

As with other human endeavors (other acdemia, politics, relationships), one sees corrution here as well. It is interesting that money seemed to play a crucial role in this particular instance.

[Ngakunui]

So to put bluntly, because there's a million year old lemur-like monkey that it's suddenly a common ancestor to chimpanzees, lemurs, and all mankind?

Are they serious?

Honestly, I'm not saying it can't be some sort of "primitive lemur", or whatever; but it simply amazes me how some of these scientists believe it has any sort of lineage with human beings. Seriously; I think that if the whole "evolution of man" thing has any credibility, it would be that we'd "Evolve" from more intelligent and alike animals like Pigs(after all, some organs from pigs are more compatible with humans than any ape organ), or Cats(after all, they are less subject to being controlled than apes- that's a sign of intelligence). I mean, seriously, now; when people try to find "missing links", they assume that we came from lemurs, then chimps, then apes, etc. Maybe they'll start saying we're hybrids of apes and some other species next?(it would excuse the lack of various "missing links" after all)

But enough of my "overwhelming skepticism" towards "Evolution"- apparently if I'm not indoctrinated to be a "believer" of it in a government school, I'm "unable to reason".

Anyway, I'll wait a while before I conclude my opinions. Maybe I'll wait for History Channel's thing on it- albeit, I'll pay no attention to the "ALL GLORY TO DARWIN" parts that are inevitably within it.

[Proinsias]

Seriously; I think that if the whole "evolution of man" thing has any credibility, it would be that we'd "Evolve" from more intelligent and alike animals like Pigs(after all, some organs from pigs are more compatible with humans than any ape organ), or Cats(after all, they are less subject to being controlled than apes- that's a sign of intelligence). I mean, seriously, now; when people try to find "missing links", they assume that we came from lemurs, then chimps, then apes, etc. Maybe they'll start saying we're hybrids of apes and some other species next?(it would excuse the lack of various "missing links" after all)

There are a few reasons. Anatomy played a large part initially, a cursory glance at gross anatomy shows much closer relationships between the primates mentioned with humans than pigs and cats. Genetics also gives a rough idea of percentages of similarities in genes which go some way to determining relationships. So, yeah, they do assume but they make the assumptions based on evaluating some sort of evidence.

On a completely subjective and non-scientific tangent I'm quite surprised you find pigs more alike to humans than apes, I can't say I identified more with the pigs than the apes the last time I visited the zoo.

To my knowledge the reason pig organs are used in place of other primate organs is more to do with ease and cost of breeding coupled with a lower ethical outcry, I may be wrong here.

I'm not sure that apes being easier to control than cats means much at all. Alligators and great white sharks would be stronger contenders for ancestry if this was the basis for evaluation.

[Gman]

Honestly, I'm not saying it can't be some sort of "primitive lemur", or whatever; but it simply amazes me how some of these scientists believe it has any sort of lineage with human beings.

That's the whole problem... We should allow science to be questioned. But in the case of the Darwinian paradigm, it CANNOT be questioned. It is the central logical ruler over all science. Regardless of all the results, it will in some way have to connect to a common ancestor. There are no other alternatives.... The beginning has been fixed, and the ending is fixed and there is nothing you can do that will ever change the outcome. This is true science, everything else is automatically false.

Sorry.

[Proinsias]

That's the whole problem... We should allow science to be questioned. But in the case of the Darwinian paradigm, it CANNOT be questioned. It is the central logical ruler over all science. Regardless of all the results, it will in some way have to connect to a common ancestor. There are no other alternatives.... The beginning has been fixed, and the ending is fixed and there is nothing you can do that will ever change the outcome. This is true science, everything else is automatically false.

This sounds remarkably like what I've heard from atheists over the years discussing Christian creationists.

Without any knowledge of the Darwinian evolutionary model Mendel was providing insights into inheritance. When these came together with Watson & Crick's insights into genetics biology had a model with which it could put to practical use, in medicine, and also project into the past to make predictions. It was far more heavily criticized before the mechanism of genetic inheritance was proposed, once proposed and generally accepted it gave more of a grounding for the idea of evolution.

Medel's inheritance, Darwin's evolution and Watson & Crick's genetics have all undergone changes over the years. I'm sure they will continue to change in the future and I hope that they will be superseded by new ideas. I've heard it said that biology has become rather comfortable with its ideas over the past hundred years of so, much as physics was for a long period after Newton, and what it needs is some radical ideas to shake it up much like what has happened in physics over the past hundred years.

What are the alternatives you propose?

[Gman]

This sounds remarkably like what I've heard from atheists over the years discussing Christian creationists.

Nonetheless it is easy to see why scientific naturalism is an attractive philosophy for scientists. It gives science a virtual monopoly on the production of knowledge, and assures scientists that no important questions are in principle beyond scientific investigation. The important question, however, is whether this philosophical viewpoint is merely an understandable professional prejudice or whether it is the objectively valid way of understanding the world.

Moreover, the creationists do not seek to overthrow evolutionary theory... We want it taught however on what it can do and what it might not be able to do.

What are the alternatives you propose?

That there was an intelligent creator that created it after it's own kind.. Surprised?

[Proinsias]

This sounds remarkably like what I've heard from atheists over the years discussing Christian creationists.

Nonetheless it is easy to see why scientific naturalism is an attractive philosophy for scientists. It gives science a virtual monopoly on the production of knowledge, and assures scientists that no important questions are in principle beyond scientific investigation. The important question, however, is whether this philosophical viewpoint is merely an understandable professional prejudice or whether it is the objectively valid way of understanding the world.

Agreed, the distinction for me is the belief that it is the only valid way for understanding the world as opposed to one of many valid ways for understanding the world.

On the other hand I do think we can benefit from dedicated minds. Whilst I may not agree that scientific investigation is the only valid way to understand the world I'm grateful that there are people who dedicate their life's to attempting this. Same goes for religion. It's one of the reasons I'm sad that Richard Dawkins ever entered the field of religion. I enjoyed his thoughts on biology and thought he had a a great gift in putting it into laymans terms, whenever he opens his mouth to talk about religion I cringe.

What are the alternatives you propose?

That there was an intelligent creator that created it after it's own kind..

I don't really see this as an alternative. We are in, and are, the creation. To simply state that it was the creator is, to me, the death of science. Everything can be explained by god. The point of science in my opinion is the attempt to explain things in other ways. These explanations will never be complete or all encompassing but I find they are useful. My default opinion is that science is always wrong, science constantly proves itself wrong, it progresses by exposing doubt in the current dogma.

If there is a scientific idea comparable to the combination of Darwin, Mendel and Francis & Crick I'm all ears but to dismiss the current model in favour of god seems akin to dismissing modern physics as we all know god created the heavens and the earth - what's the point in any scientific explanation for anything if we know that ultimately god is the reason for everything.

If that fossil turns out to be a monkey's uncle it really doesn't detract from the wonder of creation for me.

[Gman]

Same goes for religion. It's one of the reasons I'm sad that Richard Dawkins ever entered the field of religion. I enjoyed his thoughts on biology and thought he had a a great gift in putting it into laymans terms, whenever he opens his mouth to talk about religion I cringe.

Yes, I cringe at his religion too..

I don't really see this as an alternative. We are in, and are, the creation. To simply state that it was the creator is, to me, the death of science.

Looks like we disagree... Because I believe that Darwinism, in it's purity, is also a death to science... A dogmatic belief is unhealthy. This over arching explanatory model is so much hand waving, well evolution did at that, we don't understand how but it's going to do that. Well that isn't science, that's just a verbal place holder. This is hardly science...

Everything can be explained by god. The point of science in my opinion is the attempt to explain things in other ways. These explanations will never be complete or all encompassing but I find they are useful. My default opinion is that science is always wrong, science constantly proves itself wrong, it progresses by exposing doubt in the current dogma.

Again, it seems you are mixing philosophy with science. Darwinian evolution is clearly not science. It is a philosophical religion. Science is also not about believing. If science is about observation and experimentation, then we know what happens when conditions are met.

Belief on the other hand requires faith in things unseen and trust in things hoped for. Science and belief are two different things. Clearly science works to a different standard: testing our ideas vs reality.

If there is a scientific idea comparable to the combination of Darwin, Mendel and Francis & Crick I'm all ears but to dismiss the current model in favour of god seems akin to dismissing modern physics as we all know god created the heavens and the earth - what's the point in any scientific explanation for anything if we know that ultimately god is the reason for everything.

I don't get what you are saying.. Are you saying that the belief in God stifles scientific explanations? How?

If that fossil turns out to be a monkey's uncle it really doesn't detract from the wonder of creation for me.

I guess that is good for you..

[godslanguage]

Questioning science is healthy - new ideas are explored.
Even IF for example ID is wrong (which I doubt very much) Evolutionists had to open up their perspectives. BTW, alot of ID'st and creationists are evolutionists except they hold that the mechanism in question is incorrect for explaining more then sub-species or intra-specific varieties.
One can be a good scientist and believe Darwinian evolution is false. One can believe in flying spaghetti monsters and be a great scientist. Believing or not believing that humans used to be monkeys millions of years ago does not make doctors prescribe incorrect/correct medicine, does not render pharmaceutical companies to creating useful drugs for humans obsolete. Surgeons have no use to study monkeys before they could get to humans, that would be a waste of time, in fact Evolution is entirely optional for these fields where education meets application in life and death scenarios.

Darwinists coupled with the media simply skew the facts.

Creationists and ID'st are not anti-science.
ID'st are not exactly creationists either.

Darwinists use these cheap claims as a tactic, period!!!

[Proinsias]

Looks like we disagree... Because I believe that Darwinism, in it's purity, is also a death to science... A dogmatic belief is unhealthy. This over arching explanatory model is so much hand waving, well evolution did at that, we don't understand how but it's going to do that. Well that isn't science, that's just a verbal place holder. This is hardly science...

A dogmatic belief is unhealthy, modified Darwinian evolution I don't believe is necessarily dogmatic as long as we take it for what it is: a way to look at the world, not one to stick to.

Everything can be explained by god. The point of science in my opinion is the attempt to explain things in other ways. These explanations will never be complete or all encompassing but I find they are useful. My default opinion is that science is always wrong, science constantly proves itself wrong, it progresses by exposing doubt in the current dogma.

Again, it seems you are mixing philosophy with science. Darwinian evolution is clearly not science. It is a philosophical religion. Science is also not about believing. If science is about observation and experimentation, then we know what happens when conditions are met.

Belief on the other hand requires faith in things unseen and trust in things hoped for. Science and belief are two different things. Clearly science works to a different standard: testing our ideas vs reality.

Science is about believing, if you don't believe in the scientific method then what's the point in science? If you don't hope that it will make a difference then what's the point.

I don't believe in it, I find it useful and interesting.

If there is a scientific idea comparable to the combination of Darwin, Mendel and Francis & Crick I'm all ears but to dismiss the current model in favour of god seems akin to dismissing modern physics as we all know god created the heavens and the earth - what's the point in any scientific explanation for anything if we know that ultimately god is the reason for everything.

I don't get what you are saying.. Are you saying that the belief in God stifles scientific explanations? How?

No. Belief in god does not stifle scientific explanation. If you have fixed ideas about god that may well stifle scientific explanations. Similarly if you have fixed ideas about science you may well end up like Ricard Dawkins.

If that fossil turns out to be a monkey's uncle it really doesn't detract from the wonder of creation for me.

I guess that is good for you..

It's not that it's good for me, it's that it doesn't really bother me. I don't understand why it is such a big issue. I don't understand why the frontline of science makes any impact on one's relationhip with god.

[Gman]

A dogmatic belief is unhealthy, modified Darwinian evolution I don't believe is necessarily dogmatic as long as we take it for what it is: a way to look at the world, not one to stick to.

First, thanks for the reply... I'll try to explain this the best I can.. We agree that a dogmatic belief is unhealthy. That is for either side too (creationism or darwinism). Now I don't know how things are controlled in Scotland, but here in the U.S. there are no other explanations allowed in the public school systems except evolution. Not even theistic evolution.. There is no such thing as modified Darwinian evolution. It's still all in the scheme of evolution. This is the dogmatic approach I'm referring to.

The problem here is if people start using science to start opening the door to theology by saying that nature is all that exists and that it created everything (with no God), then I want in too.. After all I'm paying for this with my taxes.

Science is about believing, if you don't believe in the scientific method then what's the point in science? If you don't hope that it will make a difference then what's the point.

Of course I believe in the scientific method.. But that isn't the point. The goal of science is not to establish "truth" in any absolute sense, but rather to generate ever more accurate and consistent depictions and explanations of phenomena in our universe. At its very heart, scientific methodology is an exercise in rational thought and critical thinking.

I don't believe in it, I find it useful and interesting.

You don't believe in the scientific method? Oh come now. I think you do..

No. Belief in god does not stifle scientific explanation. If you have fixed ideas about god that may well stifle scientific explanations. Similarly if you have fixed ideas about science you may well end up like Ricard Dawkins.

Not so... Why? Because I want evolution taught in the schools too (as a valid option). Along with ID however... This is where the problem is. One side claiming victory over the other... Dawkins thinks there is only one true science. Evolution. I don't...

IIt's not that it's good for me, it's that it doesn't really bother me. I don't understand why it is such a big issue. I don't understand why the frontline of science makes any impact on one's relationhip with god.

It's a big issue here... Why? Because the public schools are putting naturalism, based on the premise that nature is all there is. It is based on the premise on metaphysical naturalism. One assumes that in the beginning was nothing but matter and mindless motion. It follows from this starting point assumption is that impersonal unintelligent purposeless forces must have been capable of doing all the creation because there wasn't anything else (no God).

Another question is, what is this statement doing in a anthropology book in a public College?

“The relationship between science and religion has never been easy. While both serve, in their own ways, to explain phenomena, scientific explanations are based in data analysis and interpretation. Religion, meanwhile, is a system of beliefs not amenable to scientific testing and falsification; it is based in faith. “ page 39,Essentials of Physical Anthropology. 2008.

So if people are going to start pulling punches like this, then they shouldn't be shocked when others object to it... Especially when I'm the one (a tax payer) paying for it. Again, if they want to put theology in a public science book, then I want in too..

[Proinsias]

Thanks Gman.

Apologies for the last post, it was a little rushed.

There doesn't seem to be much of an issue around the schooling of evolution and religion in Scotland, not to say that it is non-existent.

My wife is a primary, 5-12, teacher and a few of my friends teach in secondary schools, 12-17. Here evolution is taught in science lessons and theistic approaches to creation are taught in religious lessons. Personally I'm not in favour of putting ID in science lessons, what I would like to see is much less of a dogmatic approach taken in science lessons, more of a stress put on the the notion that what is being taught is merely a current model of the world and not the cold hard facts about reality. Naturalism is in the realm of philosophy, I think, and thus should also not be any part of science lessons. I suspect that you think the teaching of evolution implies naturalism, I beg to differ - and from your comments earlier about Darwinists trying to distance themselves from abiogenesis as it is a huge slap in the face for them I'm not sure evolution does necessarily imply naturalism, it has its limits.

I asked if you had an alternative model as I don't believe the notion that 'god did it' should be taught as part of a scientific curriculum, if there is a model which has as much going for it as the Darwin, Mendel, Francis & Crick model then I'm all for it providing it does not include God. I find the idea of attributing events to god to be unhelpful in science, beyond comparing 'eureka' moments to divine experience. If science answers a question with god then science has ceased to be science and has moved into the realms of philosophy and theology - the next step is to define and explain god and I believe this is outwith the remit of science.

I'm kind of torn on the teaching of religion in schools. I would like my daughter to be able to make her own decisions about what religious path she wishes to take. Here we have, mainly, Catholic schools and nondenominational, in practice Protestant, schools. My issue is not so much with the teaching of evolution but moreso with the teaching of religion, it saddens me that the teaching of philosophy doesn't seem to be on the list at all. In science lessons kids here are taught biology, chemistry and physics. In religious classes kids are taught about Christianity, in all my years of education I had one lesson on other religions which was no more than painting a few caricatures which were then brought down.

I think that evolution should be taught in biology classes, without ID, but without a dogmatic approach - more of a 'this is the best we've got at the moment'. What I would like to see is more of a balance in religious classes. A curriculum which explored Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism without bias. I'm sure that my daughter has and will experience God, I'm just wary of her placing that experience within the structure of Protestant Christianity as that is the one she has been provided with.

I should add that I'm very glad I came here. A few years ago I was searching for a place to discuss god and happened upon the Atheist Toolbox via stumbleupon, I'm glad I did. I had many long winded discussions at first but eventually became part of the community. Over time it kinda built up ideas about Christians, especially creationists and ID'ers, that this place is remedying wonderfully. I may not agree with everything that is said here but I've found a forum with insightful, intelligent, thoughtful and nice people. I'm still not sure that this a space for me, as I gather it is a somewhat of a safespace for like minded people but I'm thankful I came across it.

If there is anything I've glossed over you would like answered just ask, as I decided to abandon the quote thing for this post.

[Proinsias]

Doh, that was me failing to be concise.

[Gman]

Thanks Gman.

Apologies for the last post, it was a little rushed.

There doesn't seem to be much of an issue around the schooling of evolution and religion in Scotland, not to say that it is non-existent.

My wife is a primary, 5-12, teacher and a few of my friends teach in secondary schools, 12-17. Here evolution is taught in science lessons and theistic approaches to creation are taught in religious lessons. Personally I'm not in favour of putting ID in science lessons, what I would like to see is much less of a dogmatic approach taken in science lessons, more of a stress put on the the notion that what is being taught is merely a current model of the world and not the cold hard facts about reality.

Yes... In fact I would be ok with that too.. I've stated this before, if teachers of science would realize their job to teach students, to know and understand evolutionary theory, but not require them to believe it, then much of this ID conflict would go away.

Even teaching the problems with evolution would be ok... Let's just be truthful with one another. That's all...

Naturalism is in the realm of philosophy, I think, and thus should also not be any part of science lessons. I suspect that you think the teaching of evolution implies naturalism, I beg to differ - and from your comments earlier about Darwinists trying to distance themselves from abiogenesis as it is a huge slap in the face for them I'm not sure evolution does necessarily imply naturalism, it has its limits.

I asked if you had an alternative model as I don't believe the notion that 'god did it' should be taught as part of a scientific curriculum, if there is a model which has as much going for it as the Darwin, Mendel, Francis & Crick model then I'm all for it providing it does not include God. I find the idea of attributing events to god to be unhelpful in science, beyond comparing 'eureka' moments to divine experience. If science answers a question with god then science has ceased to be science and has moved into the realms of philosophy and theology - the next step is to define and explain god and I believe this is outwith the remit of science.

I would agree with not including God (nor biblical creationism) in the public science classes. That is exactly why the intelligent design community was established. ID is already being used a number of areas of science such as archeology, anthropology, forensics and SETI , and it hasn't hurt science. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.

Design doesn't say who the designer was. Now does design have religious implications? Yes, but does it have religious presuppositions? No.. Design just says that something looks designed. We already do this in anthropology (stone tools), forensics, and the like. In fact a number of scientists have already accepted that the existence of intelligent life could exist elsewhere in the universe and that life could be the result of “seeding” by aliens known as the “panspermia” hypothesis.

I'm kind of torn on the teaching of religion in schools. I would like my daughter to be able to make her own decisions about what religious path she wishes to take. Here we have, mainly, Catholic schools and nondenominational, in practice Protestant, schools. My issue is not so much with the teaching of evolution but moreso with the teaching of religion, it saddens me that the teaching of philosophy doesn't seem to be on the list at all. In science lessons kids here are taught biology, chemistry and physics. In religious classes kids are taught about Christianity, in all my years of education I had one lesson on other religions which was no more than painting a few caricatures which were then brought down.

I don't think that any form of religion should be taught in public schools. Maybe in the philosophy classes in comparative analogies, but not in whole. However, if a certain class if going to start calling shots, then we should let them all speak to be fair to the rest (a true democracy).

I think that evolution should be taught in biology classes, without ID, but without a dogmatic approach - more of a 'this is the best we've got at the moment'. What I would like to see is more of a balance in religious classes. A curriculum which explored Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism without bias. I'm sure that my daughter has and will experience God, I'm just wary of her placing that experience within the structure of Protestant Christianity as that is the one she has been provided with.

I'm all for letting the chips fall where they may and making sound decisions... Exploring and having doubts is a good thing which actually makes your convictions stronger. I would encourage that for anyone and let them decide for themselves. Which is why I'm at where I am now... To be free.

I should add that I'm very glad I came here. A few years ago I was searching for a place to discuss god and happened upon the Atheist Toolbox via stumbleupon, I'm glad I did. I had many long winded discussions at first but eventually became part of the community. Over time it kinda built up ideas about Christians, especially creationists and ID'ers, that this place is remedying wonderfully. I may not agree with everything that is said here but I've found a forum with insightful, intelligent, thoughtful and nice people. I'm still not sure that this a space for me, as I gather it is a somewhat of a safespace for like minded people but I'm thankful I came across it.

If there is anything I've glossed over you would like answered just ask, as I decided to abandon the quote thing for this post.

I think you have a lot of good questions and have very good insight into the situation Proinsias. I think it is all good to get our thoughts out on the table.

Blessings