<p>"One problem in discussing evolution with the yahooistas is that the word “theory” in the vernacular does not match its meaning in the scientific world. In the vernacular, it’s pretty much akin to “wild-assed guess”; in the scientific world, it means “consistent with in-depth observation.”</p>
<p>Actually, it’s even more than that. A theory is science has to have a “falsifiable hypothesis”, elements which, if proven incorrect by observable data (experimental or otherwise), makes if false. It would still be a theory, just a discarded one.</p>
<p>I keep asking friends for the falsifiable hypothesis for creationism. Hmmm…</p>
<p>I was once one of “them,” the “yahooistas” if you prefer (though I can’t say I’m crazy about the term.</p>
<p>By the time I graduated from high school, I had spent more hours in fundamentalist churches than I had in school. The church where I spent most of that time was “young earth creationist” in its orientation, and very suspicious of “secular education.” The conventional wisdom there was that people who went away to secular schools underwent something akin to brain washing, and became too “worldly” to return to the fold. I remember discussing the subject in the essay sections of two of my college applications (the two that rejected me).</p>
<p>It would be hard to exagerate how difficult and how painful the long process of developing a more modern, scientific viewpoint was for me. I went through just about all the stages: “young earth creationist” (meaning God created everything in six days, about 6,000 years ago) to old earth creationism (the notion that creation took far longer than 6,000 years), to Tiehard de Jardin’s deistic evolution, and a nodding acquaintance with “intelligent design theory” (one of whose leading lights was my torts professor in law school, coincidentally) before arriving at my current solidly Darwinistic point of view. In my own intellectual journey (it’s funny to use that term - the journey was least as much one of the emotions as the intellect), it seems in retrospect that ontogeny recapulated philogeny: I personally retraced many of the steps taken by science itself. This process had barely started by the time I graduated from college. Almost any science class raised troubling issues, which probably influenced my decision to keep the focus of my studies elsewhere.</p>
<p>I’ve tried to patch up this hole in in my education by working my way through much of the popular literature written by some of the leading luminaries of evolutionary science, including Stephen Jay Gould, Ernst Mayer (who died at the age of 100 the other day, and whose penultimate work, “What Evolution Is,” was written when he was 98 or 99), Richard Dawkins, Jarred Diamond, and Steve Jones. It’s amazing how many great scientists in this field have proven to be great writers (following in a tradition started by Darwin himself). I’ll be grateful the rest of my life that they took the time to write so well and so convincingly for a lay audience that included at least one reader who required a great deal of convincing.</p>
<p>Just a note on the oddness of the filtering software this board uses: It wouldn’t let me use the word “dis.trust.ful” in my last posting, so I changed it to “suspicious.”</p>
<p>Greybeard, that is because the word you were not allowed to type contained a four-letter string generally regarded in online slang to stand for a disrespectful interrogation. (Remove the L from the end of that word and take the four letters before the L.)</p>
<p>Bizarre, huh.</p>
<p>(And by the way, thank you for your post about the process of growing into Darwinism slowly and painfully. It took much work for you to grow beyond that early conditioning: congratulations on having the strength and courage for the journey.)</p>
<p>Mini, if God appeared and said, “No…it didn’t happen that way, the Bible is poetic truth not scientific truth, please carry on!”, that <em>might</em> be considered data that falsifies the Creationist “theory,” which otherwise has no data to back it up.</p>
<p>SBMom, you’d be surprised: I was just recently at an event where the homilist gave one of the most anti-intellectual, anti-scientific homilies I’ve ever heard in any church that’s remotely of my persuasion. He did, in fact, use the supposition that we shouldn’t pay any attention to science because it’s always changing: he used Newton/Einstein/quantum physics as an example. It’s the kind of thing that makes me embarrassed to be a regular church-going Christian.</p>
<p>Greybeard, I’m sorry to step on your toes. But I’ve had my fill and I’m passed being polite when talking to or about yahooistas. It goes beyond evolution to a whole set of issues, including incredible ignorance their own Church history and the premises upon which they build their worldview. I have no quarrel with the faith they want to live; I resent like the blazes the efforts of the would-be ayahtollahs to impose their narrow outlook on the rest of us.</p>
<p>Thanks, Mootmom. It seems funny typing the letters “mom” in this context, as I remain in the closet on the subject of Darwinism with my aging parents; their long-held beliefs would lead them to picture me spending eternity in a “lake of fire, where there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth.”</p>
<p>Understood. It seems like you’re reserving the term for those who are trying to impose their wordview on the rest of us, and browbeat into silence anyone expressing ideas that make them uncomfortable. </p>
<p>My personal style is to avoid adding any accelerants to the class resentment and persecution complex that fuel much of the fundamentalist fire. I accept that your frustration leads you to adopt a different style of discourse.</p>
<p>“If they want war, let it begin here.” --Major Pitcairn, Concord Bridge</p>
<p>Fwiw, I wasn’t aware that fundamentalist fire depended upon any external fuel.
Also, fwiw, it has become abundantly clear to me that the message must be sent that the would-be ayahtollahs do not speak for all who are engaged with religion. It was mortifying when a Jewish friend in the Kerry campaign said that he had come to realize that not all Christians are the anti-gay, anti-Choice, anti-intellectual, etc. It should be evident enough that there’s no realization to come to.</p>
<p>Thedad, I am not now nor ever have been anything even remotely resembling a fundamentalist, but it goes too far to call them ayatollahs. I do not see them issuing death-threat fatwas, paying the families of (and recruiting) suicide (homicide) bombers, etc. You are entitled to your opinion, but this is stretching the limits of language. Don’t be mad! :)</p>
<p>Cultural anthro needed not focus on evolution, but I do not see how a physical anthro class could not teach it (former anthro major turned lawyer).</p>
<p>Concerneddad: You are right, of course. I was responding to the OP’s speculation:</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>As I suggested earlier, the reason why anthro is not taught as a core subject in high schools is because, as a discipline, it is relatively recent. The Harvard Anthropology website states that the department was established in 1886. It appears that one can be a social anthropology major and bypass biological anthropology altogether (by taking one course in archeology). </p>
<p>Some high schools do offer a course or two in anthropology, often under Social Studies. My S took such a course from a Social Studies teacher (with a Ph.D. in anthropology); it was a course in cultural anthropology, not biological anthro.</p>
<p>I had anthro in high school, as I wasn’t on the “college” track I am not sure what division it fell under. It was an amalgam of geology/humansocieties and didn’t have a prereq. Probably was a social science as there was no lab work. Good class.</p>
<p>I realize schools don’t teach anthro in high school, some colleges may not have many courses- ( my daughters school doesn’t have geology!)
I don’t think it is cause of evolution because they do teach genetics. My 9th grade daughter just wrote a paper on stem cell research for her biology class.</p>