No Ryhme or Reason!!! Poof ......here's DUMBO!!!!

1.Why does Miller argue that “no science is safe” from attacks by creationists? Give examples of different scientific disciplines that creationists attack?

Miller argues that “no science is safe” from attacks by creationists because in order for the creationists to have strong appeal and grounds for rebuttals they must prove that scientific methods do not work or are false. Creationists have set out to prove wrong many disciplines of science such as astronomy and its fundamental constants, chemistry and its laws of thermodynamics, and geology and the new methods of dating rocks.

2.Why does this mode of attack flourish in our discipline-based approach to education? How can interdisciplinary address the problem? Can interdisciplinary prevent the problem?

This mode of attack flourishes in a discipline based approach to education, because each discipline is separated into its own category where as an interdisciplinary discipline –based approaches bring many aspects of education together making it less vulnerable to attack. So by only attacking one subfield of science, creationists would have a better chance at disproving evolutionary thoughts, hypotheses and theories. Even as they continue to convince the science world that most of what they know and believe is true, but that is really just the subfield of biology has strayed from the truth.

3.How did Gould and Eldredge rock the evolutionary boat in 1972? How can you reconcile their claims with the genetic “switches” you learned about in the NOVA documentary “What Darwin Never Knew”?

Gould and Eldredge rocked the evolutionary boat by going against the normative and predominate views of “modern synthesis” that was well thought of during this time. The idea modern synthesis was the thought that evolution was a gradual process and could be found within the confines of preexisting structures of science. Gould and Eldredget thought ill of this due to the fact the there have to be changes appearing in the fossil record. Gould and Eldredge instead came forth with a new idea called “punctuated equilibrium” which stated that living things live had be maintained in a type of equilibrium for years, and that while in the state the organism would instead undergo brief periods of rapid change. This idea seemed to correspond with the theory of genetic “switches” talked about in the Nova film, because the switches could be identified as a type of rapid growth or change within the organism.

4.Outline Phillip Johnson’s critiques of evolution, and explain why each critique is invalid. Note: you can use this outline as a draft of your Talking to your neighbor essay!

The first critique was that if there was not a complete fossil record, the gaps in the record would make the record irrelevant and not a viable source of data in the evolutionary path of evidence. This argument was not valid, because as we have learned in the class gaps in the record can be made by the mere fact that we have not found a particular species yet or that it was in fact a species that did not preserve well within the fossilization process. The second critique made by Johnson says something to the effect that a genetic mechanism that cannot make the jump in both form and function within a particular species was simple impossible. This is a bunch of poop because scientist can in fact measure the rate of morphological change caused by natural selection in the fossil record.


5.One common claim by advocates of Intelligent Design is that nearly identical elephants appeared in India and Africa, and that special creation is the only way to explain how these geographically disparate species could be so similar. Test this hypothesis as a scientist would. Use figures 4.3 and 4.4 in your discussion.

(Tried to do this question later and ERES would not open for me to look at the figures)Sadly incomplete

6.What are some of the flaws in design that we would have to accept if we believe in Intelligent Design?

The first flaw we would have to embrace would be that the intelligent creator designed each species specifically, which is just not true there are a great deal of species very much alike. Next we would have to believe that every specific species would make its way in the fossil record, lastly we would have believe that ancestry is not real and does not exist.

7.What are the mechanisms of evolutionary change that Johnson and his ilk deny?
They deny such things as a sequence within the fossil record, stating that the scientists are merely imaging things, that in fact the intelligent designer was changing his beautiful and wonderful masterpiece each and every time. (Uh-huh! Rightttt!). They also deny the idea of genetic switches, believe they could not possible cause the jump in form and function.