For clarity:
The Catholic Church endorses "directed evolution".

I disagree with the term "fundamentalist" it suggest that their views are support by primary teaching of Christianity that they are not. My reaction to Serge is based on the fact that he is insulting my religion and my daughter education and environment which he obviously knows nothing about. Also the purpose of this tribe is to discuss issues related to evolution and not see it become a endless philosophical debate on the merits of Atheism vs. Christianity. If he wants to discuss his religious beliefs there are many other more appropriate tribes for which he can do that.

<John,
This is a science tribe - the absurdity of blind following of a dogmatic nonsense is what is unappreciated.
>

I agree, which is why I am asking you to stick to the science and exercise your dogma at some other tribe.

<This idiocy, called "Religion vs. Science", exists exclusively within the borders of this country. IT DOES NOT EXIST ANYwhere else.
If you want to discuss religion, do it at an appropriate place>

LOL you are the one discussing religion vs science, I am discussing the ability of children to grasp the finer aspects of Evolution.

<Children are not burdened with the vileness of adults. Especially at that age. It is roughly by the middle school, (the majority), absorbs the filth.
That is why Jesus said - "Be like children". >

I agree adults tend to have baggage, reasons for disagreeing that extended into politics and sexuality rather then simple reason. Children are open minded and inquisitive, that is how I like to be.

John - While I know it's incomprehensible to many people who are religious, I have no religious beliefs (and, no, science isn't my replacement religion, I just don't have or need a religion). One doesn't need to overtly discuss beliefs with children, they learn by observation and are guided by their parents' worldview since that's their primary point of reference. But, whatever, you clearly have a religious and not a scientific interest in evolution and are uncomfortable with uncertainty and acknowledging that sometimes we simply don't know things (or at least don't yet). Someone who can't actually sit with uncertainty makes a very poor scientist, particularly if their response to the unknown and uncertainty is just to stuff some god into the gaps in current scientific knowledge.

<um...aren't Fundamentalists people who insist on a literal interpretation of the bible? As in Young Earth Creationsists? >

The problem there is that the literal translation of the original text supports evolution, what the so called "fundamentalist" want is to demand that their interpretations, which are based on more ignorance of scripture then ignorance of science, as fact.

<As in Young Earth Creationsists? The problem (or at least *my* problem) with ID people is that they 1) come up with bogus arguments why it HAS to be true, and 2) try to pass it off as science and want it to be taught as science in science class. >

I have the same problem with these people they are unable to seperate what the bible says from their own conjecture.

<It is important to understand (and to teach!) that the science says there is no necessity to invoke direction from God to explain evolution.>

That's a philosophically debatable point not scientific one. And that is the problem, seperating what is religious/philosphical conjecture from science, Its no different then the creationist who can't seem to seperate scientific conjecture from scripture. Evolution simply shows that species evolve over time. Any belief that one may have about the involvement or lack of involvement by God is religious conjecture and not science. Your welcome to your beliefs and I am happy to debate such a conclusion, but in the context of religion/philosophy whichis what it is.

<Preoperational" stage:(magical thinking predominates, and children cannot conserve or use logical thinking). It could very likely be easier for a child of that age to accept a magicoreligious explanation than a scientific one.>

My daughter is 4 1/2 and I am a firm believer that developmental milestone are precipitated by mental and physical exercise. The brain is an amazingly plyable organ, its development can be quickened or slowed or halted depending on the exercise it gets.

Lenny - John is claiming that it's harder to teach his daughter evolution than religion and then claiming he didn't teach his daughter religion, he's being dishonest about one or the other for some reason. He's also the one who set up evolution vs religion with his initial post.

As someone who was raised godless (not anti-religion or god, just godless) and aware that humans are animals too, I actually found the idea of a Christian God incredibly confusing and contrived when I first ran into it at around 5 years of age (particularly the way it tends to be taught to Catholic children, my friends were devout Catholics..or at least their parents were, they were just kids). Not that I wasn't envious of the Jesus coloring books my friends got ;-) And, obviously I was influenced by my parents' beliefs about the world both consciously and unconsciously (though my observations about certain things led me to form my own ideas very early on). I'm not contesting the fact that younger children don't have a firm grasp of the difference between reality and imagination - though I'd propose that animistic and pagan "magical" beliefs are a more natural product of a tendency towards magical thinking than Christian ones which don't emerge spontaneously and are actually not very intuitive - as pointed out by Tex. I had a period where I built houses for fairies and I always recognized animals as fellow creatures - though they were never magically directing or creating the world in the way a "god" is supposed to do. I'm just pointing out that neither evolution or religion are very different for children to believe in if they're not being taught to learn for themselves and think critically. There's a lot of negativity about animals in our culture, which grew out of the religious idea that we're not animals ("heathen" and/or pagan religions didn't make this distinction, it seems to be a feature of monotheistic Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion...and it's also a religious/cultural belief that blinded and influenced science for a long time). We have "sinful" animals urges that are caused by Satan aka The Beast (of course, part of that was a means to oppress Pagan religions and frame them as "evil"), it's our "animal nature" that is bad and "love" is divine (not an evolutionary development related to mammals that have offspring that is dependent outside of the womb for a considerable period of time), and so on.

Of course, part of it is *how* and *what* we teach children. Teaching children we're descended from apes is actually sort of misrepresenting the case since we ARE apes and not descended from the chimps, bonobos or gorillas you'd see in the zoo, we're all just different branches of the ape family. I guess part of it is whether one is teaching a child to learn and think for themselves or to believe a particular thing the adult believes. I was lucky enough to have a grandmother who was a teacher and parents who answered my questions and weren't afraid to say "we don't know that yet". They encouraged my curiosity and let me know that there weren't answers for all questions but that part of the fun was in trying to find out things through research and observation (rather than in being "right" or always having to have an answer). It made the unknown interesting and exciting. I certainly find religion interesting from an anthropological and cultural perspective, I'm just aware of how religion gets in the way of science when it's brought into science (ditto for political ideologies). I see science as a tool and methodology, not a belief system. Evolution didn't blow my mind nor was it hard to comprehend as a child. Now the concept of infinity was pretty mind boggling to learn as a kid!

I really don't understand why you think it's harder for a young kid to accept we're animals and related to other apes (though it may result in parents having to face difficult questions about why we abuse other animals) than we're not animals and were created by some invisible guy in the sky. Evolution really isn't unintuitive if you haven't been taught something else already. If kids are uncritical thinkers prone to magical thinking, it makes no sense to propose they'd think critically about evolution but not religion (or that they wouldn't accept evolution as a magical explanation just as easily as they accept a magical god). After all, some religions have animals as their gods and they gave birth to humans. Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions really are very contrived and unintuitive if you place them alongside paganism and many older nature-based religions.

The other thing I mentioned earlier that I think is relevant has to do with individuals. Some of us are more prone to magical thinking, while others of us are on the other end of the scale. What about a child with Aspergers Syndrome? Or on the other end of the spectrum, a child who is prone to schizophrenia? Some people just don't seem to be biologically primed for magical thinking, while others are primed towards magical thinking to such a degree that it causes dysfunctional. I'm not placing a value judgment on either, I think imagination and logic/critical thinking are both valuable and useful human traits. A good scientist combines both, just as a good artist does. We need both art and science - and I don't doubt that some people also need religion but that doesn't mean all of us do or that we replace the certainty of a religious belief with a religious belief in science. Science merely a tool and it is influenced by the culture it's practiced within (in formerly Christian nations it was whatever form of Christianity was in power, in China it's Chinese cultural conventions and so on), which is why it's so important to be aware of how culture influences the practice of science.

To follow-up on Lenny's post, the pre-frontal cortex related to logical reasoning and the "executive control" centers do not finish developing until the mid-twenties. As Lenny noted they begin developing around 10-years-of-age.

"That's science - constant testing and retesting of hypotheses and ideas, accepting some and rejecting others, and doing it again and again until some kind of understanding is reached."

It isn't science, it is philosophy. No one was there to observe evolution and no one can replicate it in the laboratory. Sifting through various theories of evolution to find one which is most satisfying is not science at all. The subject isn't "lets consider all options and see which one fits the facts the best". It is "let's consider which naturalistic view is most likely". The whole discussion is an artificial and academic one, not science. This is why this who tribe is a joke. You discuss evolution as it relates to this and that without considering the fact that no proof exists anywhere that any molecule to man evolution has ever occured.

"I honestly can't see doing that with God. "

sure you can. You can consider the various pagan entities and compare them to the patriarchal Gods for example to determine which one is more logical and evidential based.

Krampus - I'll read through the whole PDF but even in the beginning premise - that the only "proper" use of genitals is procreation - there's a bias that seems to me to be religious/social in original rather than practical. Is pleasure an "improper" use of genitals? Why? Is pleasure "immoral" or "unnatural"? As noted, bonobos use their genitals and mutual masturbation, including same sex masturbation, to diminish social conflict. Clearly both pleasure and sexual interactions - that aren't aimed at procreation - can be highly socially functional (for bonobos at least). Masturbation and sexual pleasure clearly serve other functions for humans than simply procreation. Are social connection, pleasure and stress relief an "improper" use of genitals? This seems more tied into puritanical religious beliefs that procreation *should* only be for reproduction to me and that pleasure doesn't have value in and of itself (and is not "proper" or natural). I look forward to your thoughts on the matter (even if we continue to disagree :-)

Krampus - I suspected we might be on the same, or at least a similar, page from reading your other posts. Pardon my tendency to go off on a rant on this subject. What do you mean be "mores"? While many people do use "ethics" and "morality" interchangeably, and it's not an invalid thing to do since it's so common and they can mean the same thing, I just find it useful to make a distinction and use the language that tends to be used in a (at least medical) science context.