Slashdot Mirror
Darwin's Revenge In Kansas
Moby-One GNUbie writes: "Kansas voters reject 2 of 3 anti-evolution state school board members, proving that my home state has more brains than many gave it credit for. Some good news on that front should be refreshing for everyone." Check out the initial war of words when I had posted this originally.
this shouldn't even be an issue... Is it to late to kick kansas out of the union? Has this come up in other states? I was pretty sure evolution was an indisputable fact... guess I was wrong.
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
Where is Jon Erickson? We need a non-biased, non-judgemental view on this important situation!
Seriously though this should not even be an issue in education. IMHO, Certainly people are entitled to their own opinions/thoughts and actions however when it comes to state sponsered eductation, religious views should be expressed but NOT solely expressed. If they are solely expressed then students (of whom my Federal taxes go towards their benefit) are left with only one piece of the puzzle, and this is basically no better than state sanctioned censoring. I have no problem with teaching Creationism but it should not be taught that IT is more true than evolution.
Sig it.
The Dinosaur bones were brought in from another dimension by minions of Satan to throw us off the scent of truth.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
Just the fact that people like this survive, and reproduce, and not only that get voted into power.
Humankind is poisoning it's future by letting them reproduce!
Isn't it funny that anti-evolutionists are also usually anti-birth control and anti-abortion? It's the only way they can survive and propogate!
When I were your age, all round here were fields...
So what's worse: schools rejecting science or schools rejecting the separation of church and state?
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
The war of words is /. in it's entirety?
WHOA.
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
I can't even see where i would begine to name examples that makes this complete nonsense... geology, plate tectonics, starlight from millions of light years away...
Do these people also believe that Noah put two of each animal in his Ark, and maybe the dinosaurs were extinct because they did not fit??? It would be interesting if someone actually managed to build a complete theory on this, and surely of similar amusement value as the "Discworld" series...
Speaking of discs, have they accepted the world is not a disc?
From what I know, they simply believe that everything was put here by God. So rocks that seem to be 4 billion years old are that way because God wants it that way. Why? Who are we to question and try to understand God?
It's kind of like they think they are talking to kids.
me: why?
them: Because we said so.
repeat until I go away.
-----
Planning to be moderated ± 1: Bad Pun.
God gave us curiosity for a reason. He gave it us because "[He] wants it that way". IMO, you have missed the point. I do not believe that we can ever understand God, but that is not what the debate is about. It is about trying to understand our Earth.
Sig it.
I forget if it was 3 out of the 4; or 4 out of the 5 that were up for re-election got booted in favor of pro-darwinists. I payed close enough attention to catch that the one from my district got booted :).
anyway, i was referring to long outdated views of science that have long outlived its use, such as a flat earth and creation 6000 years ago, and not to the bible and christianity in particular.
Recently, there was a lot of discussion over a University of Kansas medical school researcher (with 21 years at the institute and a host of international accolades) who was dismissed without cause. Officially, his work "no longer fits with the University's mission". He is, however, a noted freethought writer and has organized a number of conferences and colloquia at the school dealing with religious pseudoscience and other such topics, in opposition to the many "Religion and Medicine" events the school has hosted. Here is one of many articles.
See Isaiah 11:12, Revelations 7:1, and Revelations
20:8, all of which refer to the four corners of
the earth.
Out of curiosity though how would Biblical scholars explain Carbon dating/Rock layering as proof of a much older earth?
One common copout is to interpret the "six days" as "six phases" of indeterminent length.
In short, science has a habit of disproving core beliefs of most religions, islam and judeo-christianity in particular. The two common reactions are "denial" (the just unelected Kansas state school board's approach) and modification of belief ("days" now equal "phases of indeterminent length"), while still clinging to the defunct core belief.
I mean, these people still cling to the absurd notion that there is an intelligent creator of the universe. More silly still, they insist on the notion that such a creator, were he to exist, would give one flying fuck about individual human beings who would be virtually indistinguishable from bacteria from such a being's vantage point.
Such people truly will believe just about anything, which allows the Jim Jones and David Koreshes (not to mention the Reagans) of the earth to be so successful.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I have a problem with that as well. If mankind evolved from monkeys because of some adaptation, why then do monkeys still exist?
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Monkeys, apes, and humans are all descended from
a common ancestor, not from each other.
While the Religion of Science continues to mask its tracks behind the rhetoric, the whole Kansas issue underscores something blatant and simple about the whole argument: That the Origins of the Universe are a philosophical, not scientific issue.
I will have to disappoint many people by pointing this out to them, but the arguments in play in this confrontation -are- philosophical and religious, not the 'science' that many have been slinging the mud about.
Does the State have the right to establish Religion? No. So in mandating a viewpoint which is widely unprovable, and pushing it off as fact, are they not doing just that? But then, if I were opting for the Public School approach, I would be suing to have the Gaia Hypothesis removed from all curriculum because I feel that the State has no right to use my religion in a classroom setting(Gaia being a Greek God and I being a Greek practitioner have issues on this--big ones).
Mind you, I am against near-sighted thinking of all sorts, but I do understand why those of religious conscience would want the 'facts' of the Big Bang played down in reference to the philosophical issues at stake. However, there is no way to deny that Evolution is and does happen, but the issue should not be placed as 'fact' to support a position that undermines religious conscience, which it is clearly presented as in the classroom setting.
Those who believe that God did it in 7 days, those who believe in an Intelligent Creator/Creatrix, and those who believe in the scientific point of view ALL have a place at the table. They all should be discussing how to approach the philosophical issues in a way that allows science to be taught as a mechanism for discovery of how our world works, not as a club to suppress the other camps.
In space, no one can hear you moo.
There are more than 3 environments. Environment encompasses both the immediate nonliving (abiotic) surroundings, as well as biotic surroundings such as other species which are located close by. Species fill specific "vacancies" in the environment called niches, in a nutshell a niche is a "place in nature" where the species is well adapted and has less competition, and so can thrive. Species appear as a result of a) natural selection in the environment, and b) historical accident. I won't explain natural selection here, but historical accident is when random events (such as asteroid strikes or even a falling tree) quickly change the course of evolution in unpredictable ways.
Freedom: "I won't!"
Thank you for making a post that states this distinction. The first step in maintaining a discussion on this issue is the realization of this point being the basis of the conflict. I'm not saying that there should be a conflict - there is one already. And so the philosophical basis of the argument needs to be emphasized, rather then a factual 'Tag, you're it!' approach.
Sarge
Until they have anything to explain their "theory", they do not belong in schools.
However, we run into the problem of astronomical events such as the suspected meteor strike off the coast of the Yucatan penensula. This is being accepted as a plausible threory for the extinction of a complete period of biological history.
According to scientists as late as 1972, the idea of contential drift seemed ludicrous. Now, this is an accepted fact. In fact, this is the under-pinning of current oil exploration in South American and off the coast of Africa linking the continents together.
Before we foobar the ideas presented by creationists (which,admittedly, I am), I believe we need to get more facts. Just like other scientists, not all creationists believe the new-earth theory. We are allowed to accept or reject ideas in light of new information.
We have yet to explore the oceans and the secrets yet to be unlocked there. Is this world not amazing enough that we have to have microbes flying in from Mars aboard buring rocks?
To Steal from One is Plagiarism; To Steal from Many is Research.
To Copy from One is Plagiarism; To Copy from Many is Research.
Evolution is not a plan; it is a case of nature generation a ton of mutations to see which ones survive. If several survive, they survive. As to the variation of land species, animals suited for one climate (alligators in Florida, for example) and not necessarily suited to live in places like Antartica or even Minnesota.
The thing that is usually used to differentiate science from other fields of endevor is the stricture that science does not rely on the supernatural to explain things.
Nothing to say here... move along
I was hopping they had been clubbed to death by stronger, smarter, and faster school board members, but:
"...as voters turned out two of three state education leaders who last year led an effort to downplay the theory of evolution in school science classes across the state"
Damn
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
Hey,
You actually use either potassium or uranium to date rocks that are billions of years old. Radioactive carbon has a half-life of only a few thousand years. Plus, you don't date rocks with radiocarbon dating, you need organic material.
I've heard creationists use Carbon dating as "proof" for a young Earth.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Let me preface this by first stating that I am a Christian, lest there be any confusion.
I support the decision to teach scientific evolution in public schools, and to not teach the biblical creation whatsoever. If you are a christian, ask yourself how you would feel if I wanted them to teach that the world is actually carried on the back of four elephants who are standing on a giant turtle? I have as much proof of that as Creationism has of it's doctrine.
So here's the middle ground, a scientific proposal that this *could* be how the earth and life was created. It's unbiased, its just theories.
And if you don't believe it, well thats your ball of wax. But this is the public education system, which means that Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans, Atheists and Agnostics are going to have children that go there. The public education system doesn't need this kind of bias.
If you TRULY don't want your children taught evolution as fact, then might I suggest private schooling where your dollar tells them what to teach, and not some legislator.
I applaud the citizens of Kansas for making this decision. I imagine there were many enlightened "Christians" that voted in favor of Evolution being taught, as I would, if I lived in Kansas.
This is a clear demonstration that the teaching of science in schools is not being done properly. A proper understanding of evolution would tell you the fact that we did NOT evolve from monkeys. The monkeys AND us both evolved from a now extinct COMMON ANCESTOR. Neanderthals and Homo sapiens lived concurrently for many thousands of years, until Neanderthals went extinct about 100,000 years ago. They were a close branch from the same tree. Neanderthals and Homo sapien shared a common ancestor much closer back in time than you and I share with chimps, for instance. The chimp and pre-human common ancestor went out about 5 million years ago). You go back a few more million years to reach the common ancestors between between pre-chimp/pre-human and gorillas (about 7 million years ago). Those common ancestors are no longer with us. In any case, there is no reason to a priori assume that an ancestral species has to go extinct for decendants to make it. As long as the ancestor and the decendants do not compete for the same resources in the same location, there is no problem.
In addition, the common ancestor isn't static. The population that makes up that ancestor is always changing too, in addition to the changing/isolation that leads to a totally new speciation event.
YOU share 98% of your DNA with chimps. You share about 90% of your DNA with gorillas, and so forth down the line. The ONLY difference between your DNA and a chimps is generally one of gene regulation and/or gene duplication, not type of genes, form of genes, etc. Gene duplication is an ongoing process. Small genetic mutations occur all the time as well. Recombination occurs all the time. All these simple, REAL, visable activities are ALL that is required to make evolution not only likely, but a REQUIREMENT. You cannot argue for microevolution vs macroevolution either since the SAME activities of mutation that drive microevolution are NO different than those that drive macroevolution. In other words, there is NO difference between microevolution and macroevolution except by means of extent. One implies the other, one REQUIRES the other.
Modern medicine and biotechnology would not be possible or even exist if there wasn't evolution. We see evolution all the time in these fields without thinking about it much. People in general, who know nothing of these fields, are presented with the facts/evidence all the time in stories, articles, etc, but never see it for what it is...EVOLUTION in action before your eyes. The engines of evolution are always running and always visable to those with open eyes and a clear, thinking mind.
Not being familiar with someone's opinions isn't the same as being uninformed on the subject. Possibly with a title I could speak to the opinion that these people are authors of worth. I did find a reference to Behe on amazon and read the blurb, I find that I cannot respect someone who uses the phrase "irreducibly complex" without support.
Nothing to say here... move along
Out of curiosity though how would Biblical scholars explain Carbon dating/Rock layering as proof of a much older earth?
One common copout is to interpret the "six days" as "six phases" of indeterminent length.
This is a gross oversimplification of a very broad range of opinions ranging from "It's just God's will that things look that way" to "The entire creation story is a metaphor and can't be interpreted literally."
In short, science has a habit of disproving core beliefs of most religions, islam and judeo-christianity in particular. The two common reactions are "denial" (the just unelected Kansas state school board's approach) and modification of belief ("days" now equal "phases of indeterminent length"), while still clinging to the defunct core belief.
Again, things are nowhere near that simple. There is a whole range of beliefs out there, many of which do not require you to mindlessly accept dogmas.
Stories like Genesis are not a core beliefs in and of themselves. For many people, they are more important as metaphors for the way we should live our lives. (The need to weigh our desires and wishes against the consequences of our actions as in the story of Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit is a good example.)
By the way, I don't think that science can ever prove or disprove the idea that an all-powerful infinitely old being that is not bound by physical exists. This is the core belief of most religions, not the Genesis story.
I mean, these people still cling to the absurd notion that there is an intelligent creator of the universe.
This doesn't seem absurd to many, many people. YMMV.
More silly still, they insist on the notion that such a creator, were he to exist, would give one flying fuck about individual human beings who would be virtually indistinguishable from bacteria from such a being's vantage point.
It's a matter of perspective. We humans are finite creatures and can't see anything below a certain size. We also have trouble comprehending something as large as the universe. An infintely powerful god on the other hand, should be aware of even the smallest part of his creation or he's not worthy being called a god.
Such people truly will believe just about anything, which allows the Jim Jones and David Koreshes (not to mention the Reagans) of the earth to be so successful.
I won't argue this point because it's true.
Does this
...to quote Terry Gilliam.
Most scientfic theories are a model of how we think things work. We observe, hypothesise and test. If the test results match the hypothesis then the model can be considered as adequate.
Take Newton's laws of motion: they were long considered to be correct because they could be successfully used to predict planetary motions etc. Under the circumstances of the observation the model was adequate.
Then Einstein came along and produced a new model that not only fit the previous observations but also observations taken at more extremes. It successfully predicted the perturbations in the orbit of Mercury.
My point is that no one is saying that evolution is the be all and end all, but the model matches our observations. Indeed recent research suggests that Darwin's theory may need further refinement because it appears that evolution occurs in spurts rather than continuously.
Unfortunately the Creationism brigade can only ever explain observations that are contradictory to their model with the answer "God did it".
Evolution is just a theory. Natural Selection is a documented fact.
You feel that the only way to account for the genetic similarities between humans and certain other primates is evolution. What if I have a theory that God is just a brilliant bio-programmer who likes to re-use his code? I can no more prove that right than you can prove the theory of evolution to be correct.
Evolution should be taught at a theory, because at this point that's all it is. It may be the best, or most plausible theory to date, but it is still just that. Creation "Science" is just a joke. They can teach that in sunday schools if they want to, but it should NOT be in public education.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Darwin's "Theory" of evolution violates the basic laws of Physics, Biology and Statistics (it is now a concept, not a theory). It is even discredited by the fossile record. It is however accepted by many people in a desperate attempt to leave God out of their World View.
Note, I am not interested in a war of words, I am simply speaking as an Engineer who's degree is in Physics with graduate work in both Physics and Biology (almost 50/50). All of the above can easily be verified.
It is unfortunate that in this enlightened era of scientific discovery the myth of Darwin's Theory of Evolution (which is very racist, by the way) is still accepted.
--deMarshall
The post you replied to never once mentioned anything about abortion.
Why did you bring it up?
There oughta be a Godwin's Avenger for people who bring up abortion issues when they aren't involved in the discussion.
Absimiliard
From George Carlin, I believe...
Q: Do you believe in God?
A: No.
BLAM!
Q: Do you believe in God?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you belive in my God?
A: No.
BLAM!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Um... evolution *is* taught as a theory, and the fact that you used the phrase "Evolution is just a theory" demonstrates that you do not know what a scientific theory is. I'd explain further, but this site talk.origins (specifically here) does it *much* better. If you don't go and immediately read a good portion of that site (start from the top) then I'm sorry, but you have no place saying that evolution is "just a theory" as if that's supposed to be meaninful. Evolution is a theory the same way fluid mechanics, gravitation, and thermodynamics are all just "theories".
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Tree rings, ice cores, spring flood deposits... none of these can do anything to validate or invalidate a set of assumptions about the initial isotopes involved in carbon dating. Even if these techniques verify the results of carbon dating, they can't validate the assumptions without a causal link.
Just because we assume A = 3 and thus A + 4 = 7 and we know that 2 + 5 = 7 doesn't mean that A is necessarily 3. If for some reason A is actually 6, then our hypothesis that A + 4 = 7 is invalid. 2 + 5 = 7 does nothing to prove or disprove that A = 3.
But don't think I'm saying it's disproved, either. We just don't know. Tools like this aren't really meant to be used singly, anyway. Other techniques/tools should be used to confirm or contradict the results of any technique/tool.
It remains true that religious doctrines constitute a speculative hypothesis of an extremely low order of probability. Sidney Hook
--
Dyolf Knip
So? IMO, he was wrong about being wrong. he was wrong in a number of ways. He believed in acquired feature inheritance, which is to say "If I spend my life picking strawberries, and my brother spends his life picking cherries, my children will be shorter than my brother's children". This is mostly discredited nowadays.
Then again, maybe he was just hedging his bets and trying to make sure he got a place in Heaven.
Its been a while since I last did any science, but I was taught that there's quite difference between a conjecture and a theory. Before you say that evolution is only a theory, check your definitions:
hpothesis: A tentative theory or supposition provisionally adopted to explain certain facts, and to guide in the investigation of others; hence, frequently called a working hypothesis.
theory: Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.Law: A formulation describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met
As you would expect the bar for an idea becoming a scientific law is very high. By comparison we still refer to Newton's work as his "Theory of Gravity", even after hundreds of thousands of high school experiments checking Newton's work--in just our century. Meanwhile the Theory of Evolution is less than two hundred years old. Yet, going with the definitions above, saying that the idea of Evolution is a theory, means that scientists are pretty darn sure this is the way the world works. What keeps Evolution from being a scientific law is the whole invariable clause of the definition of sicentific law. Same reason why neither Newton or Einstien's works are scientific laws--actually, I think relativity has achieved that status now. We probably won't be able to establish the invariance of Evolution until we get out to another planet with life and compare it to our own.
Now, natural selection is real. It has been tested and shown to work. Steller evolution is real--we can look at stars in various stages of development, and are pretty confidant that we know the various stages of stars.
The big bang has much evidence to support it. So it is probably real. (Even though we really can't directly test it, there is a lot of evidence in support of it.)
However, evolution of species remains a philosophy. Never have the missing links been discovered. Never has one species been shown to evolve to another (though plenty have gone extinct). There are some jumps which are highly improbable (the eye?).
Scientists tend to disagree with the methodology of creationists ("we already know the answer, now lets find proof. Anything contrary can be explained away."), and have observed that religion has gotten in the way of science. However, that does not make creation any more or less valid that evolution of the species. (btw, many creationists believe that God created all life on earth, but started with a pre-existing earth and stars.) By ignoring all other options, the evolution "scientists" (perhaps more appropriately "philosophers") are doing the same thing they accuse religion of. They tend to obscure the fact that evolution of the species doesn't really have any scientific proof by pointing to natural selection, which does.
Oh, and how is the "Gaia hypothesis" scientific *at all*? That is more of a primitive "earth mother" religion than science...
No, it does not. By your reasoning, science could not be taught in schools at all. We couldn't teach the big bang theory since Hindu's believe the universe has no beginning or end. We couldn't teach chemistry because other religions believe in only 4 elements. We couldn't teach geology because some American Indians hold the earth as a whole to be sacred and should not be tampered with...and so on. Hell, we probably couldn't teach anything at all in schools, because just about everything we teach is bound to offend someone's religious sensibilities. If you want to keep your children from learning about the world, it's your perogative to take them out of the public school system and teach them what you think is important.
I will also tell you my theory is fact, until you can come up with one that has more predictive power. I don't want to hear your beliefs, I want to see your evidence, if you don't have any, then you don't have a leg to stand on, and God won't back you up either.
Frankly, the kind of argument you give scares the hell out of me. It's precisely this kind of thinking (taken to extremes) that causes all kinds of barbaric acts, simply because what you believe about God is different from what someone else thinks, and you can't deal with it. It's time to grow up. God, if He exists at all, is much bigger and greater than your little religion has ever been able to conceive of, much bigger and greater than I can conceive of, so get a grip and start learning about just how really amazing the universe we live in really is!
Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!
He said that the cosmological constant, which provided a force that counteracted gravity in just the right way to create a static universe, was the biggest blunder of his life. Turns out, he may have been right about the presence of a cosmological constant. He was only wrong about the effect of such a constant... no one is trying to use it to create a static universe. They're just using it to describe the zero-point energy fluctuations that have been theorized.
Eric
the Bible says the earth is round: isa 40:22 "It is He how sits above the circle of the earth ..." but before you continue to say that the Bible then has a contradiction, reread Revelations in the context of a prophecy and in the light of books of daniel and isaiah. also ask God to provide you with the gift of understanding when reading the Book. erick
And does ANYONE else know that just before his death, Darwin said he had been very wrong about evolution?
This is a popular misconception, and was refuted within weeks of his death. An american woman claimed to have been at his side just before his death, Darwin's family said the person wasn't allowed anywhere near him, and was, in fact, in the United states when Darwin died (in England)
Nothing to say here... move along
IIRC the pope said that evolution fix in with the whole Cathloic belief system. Hey, I'm Cathloic, it matters to me. No flames please.
Kalrand
-the voice of reason
The idea that the universe was created with an apparent age, and thus an apparent history, is probably the ultimate non-falsifiable philosophy, because literally everything, every bit of evidence that could ever come up, could be explained by this.
Still the question remains, would it not be worth finding out about the "apparent" past anyway, if we can't tell it apart from the real thing???
sorry this whole thread is so off-topic, interesting never the less...
Sure they can. To use tree rings as an example:
You have a tree sample and you date it by counting its rings. You know the amount of C-14 in live tissue. So you can make a good assumtion about the amount of C-14 in the older tissue of the tree based on the half-life of C-14.
This way assumtions are tested, refined and improved by other people.
Just how do you think science operates? Once you get in to the nitty-gritty (away from basic laws and theories) science is upheld by a web of observations, facts and theory. It is not held up high on a pedestal untouched by anything else.
These causal links do not invalidate assumptions, but strenghen them.
"Drug related crime" is a misnomer, "prohibition related crime" is the more accurate and correct phrase.
So here's mine;
1) In his letters, Charles Darwin said that evolution was built into the original progenitors of all modern species when god created them and that the current diversity of species was a credit to the elegance of god's original design (i.e. self-replicating/self improving organisms.)
So, if Darwin believed in God, then why is it such an "intellectual" sin?
2) Science is not a religion, but Science practices dogma in the manner of the church, if you don't believe this, then take a generally accepted theory (like GR) and then come up with some kind of new theory (must be or sound reasonable) that contradicts it, publish that theory and watch the sparks fly!
3) If you look at the life of Galileo (generally accepted as the father of scientific method) you will see that he held that pure theories were almost useless and proposed that only theorems that were supported by empirical evidence, derived from scientific method, were valid. Unfortunately a lot of science (especially Physics) is derived from unproven theorems. A lot of people will argue this and the argument will generally take the form of "No, experiment X or mathematics has corrolated this theorem" The problem is that corrolation doesn't provide a proof until you can empirically disprove dissenting theorems. as an example, we are taught that the speed of light cannot be exceeded because an object's mass increases as it gains speed, and at the speed of light threshhold the power requied to pass that threshhold becomes infinite (or something like that). But have we actually travelled at the speed of light minus 1? and if we did travel at that velocity, what is to stop me from walking in the direction that the vehicle is travelling at 5 mph, thereby exceeding the speed of light (relative to the rest of the universe) by a cool 3 mph. I guess that my point is that theorems are supposed to be guides and enablers, but not gags that are used to snuff out opposing theorems before they are tested against reality.
4) last point. The start of this whole debate was that creationists wanted to teach creationism as an alternative theory of creation, and of course the dogma of "evolutionism as the only sane theory" prevailed. But someone just had to mention the perceived "separation of church and state" in the first amendment. First of all the religios part of this amendment reads "shall enact no law with respect to an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free practice thereof" Most modern courts interpret this to mean that federally funded programs and schools should be devoid of religion. The problem with this is that they have made laws "prohibiting the free practice thereof" which violates the first amendment. as an example, the "pre-game prayer" that was prohibited in Texas recently, the supreme court (or any other government body" has no place issuing a law that prohibits the majority of the student body practicing their religios beliefs. Now I understand that the benediction was offensive to the parents of a couple of students, but in a Democracy, the majority rules. If the majority of a student bodies' parents want their children to commence their school day with a prayer, then let them, the students that don't believe the same can leave during the prayer, or establish their own prayer group. This is no different that the Jehova's Witnesses that I went to school with, leaving the classrom during the pledge of allegiance.
In closign I really don't want to offend anyone with this, and it should only offend the easily offended, but I am tired of the way that a lot of modern science buffs (and some professional scientists) like to say that "it's my way or the highway" and close the minds of many people to open mindedness that may lead to new and entirely "non-traditional" scientific breakthroughs. Everyone here have a good and safe (or unsafe if that floats your boat) weekend.
S.
"Laws are like sausages, it is best not to see them being made" Otto Von Bismarck
Pardon the nitpick, but while perhaps speciation is arguable, there is no small amount of evidence for it, both in the lab and in the field. Check out Observed Instances of Speciation and Some More Observed Speciation Events from the Talk.Origins Archive. Some of the examples given occurred relatively near to me in Northern Idaho and Eastern Oregon.
--
"You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
And actually, it is not a coincidence if religion has always tried to stop or slow down scientific research and great discoveries, especially regarding the origin of the universe. (Copernic, Galileo, and even recently Hawking works defining a finite 4-dimension universe and voiding the possibility of a creator with any power have been severely criticized by the catholic church). Possibly, mankind would already be living on mars without religion :)
I agree with you that the debate is still philosophical now (altough scientific evidence of the non-existence of god are getting more and more numerous), but when mankind will know enough, then the debate will actually be scientific.
You'll definetly need "God" to provide you with the gift of understanding, to understand all the contradictions. Shall I illustrate?:
John the Baptist is Elias Matthew 11:14
John the Baptist isn't Elias John 1:21
Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. 2 Kings 8:26
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. 2 Chronicles 22:2
God is heard Exodus 33:11
God is not heard John 5:37 (never heard)
God rested Genesis 2:2, Exodus 20:11 & 31:17, Hebrews 4:4
God never rests Isaiah 40:28
Jesus dies at the 6th hour John 19:14-30, Luke 23:44-46
Jesus dies at the 9th hour Matthew 27:46-50, Mark 15:25-37
David's throne was forever Psalms 89:34-37
David's throne was not forever Psalms 89:44
Do I need to continue?
Let me ask you this. Could the Bible seriously be the work of a God reputed to have created the entire universe? Is the writing quality, relevance, accuracy and consistency anywhere near up to the omniscience you would expect from God?
He created all the billions upon billions of protons in the universe absolutely identical. Not a one has ever been found off weight even in the tenth decimal place. How could that creator of the universe have also authored something so bungling as the Bible that can't go four pages without contradicting itself?
> doesn't teaching evolution as fact (which many/most schools do) violate the very foundation which this country was founded on?
You are making the bogus assumption that anything that your religion does not approve of is also a religion, and therefore should not be taught.
> And does ANYONE else know that just before his death, Darwin said he had been very wrong about evolution?
And I happen to be privy to Jesus's secret confessions at the time of his death. But for some reason no one believes me when I tell them what he said.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> What if I have a theory that God is just a brilliant bio-programmer who likes to re-use his code?
Then s/he must use Visual Basic, because most of the human genome is "junk DNA" that is not actually used by the end product. Just as people find when they disassemble VB programs.
Truly, why would anyone worship an all-powerful being that used VB?
> I can no more prove that right than you can prove the theory of evolution to be correct.
Except that we can point out to evidence for the theory of evolution, whereas you cannot point out the first bit of evidence for a divine bioprogrammer.
> Creation "Science" is just a joke. They can teach that in sunday schools if they want to, but it should NOT be in public education.
You got that right.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Except that we can point out to evidence for the theory of evolution, whereas you cannot point out the first bit of evidence for a divine bioprogrammer.
What can you point out as evidence of evolution's correctness that I can't use to point out the correctness of my God as a programmer theory?
The fact that we share common DNA with other primates? God is just reusing modular code.
Natural selection? Beta testing.
"Junk DNA"? Bloat.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Hey--did anyone in this country pay a damn bit of attention to what Kansas did last year?! Guess not. They changed the state-wide standards so that teaching of evolution was *no longer required* It's still perfectly fine to teach evolution, and it's also fine to ignore it. What no one realizes is that many states (Colorado included) never had evolution in the state standards to begin with! Kansas basically just did something that many states did 70 years ago........
Betrand Russell has a nice turn of phrase which i paraphrase here: why would a OOO (omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent) God be so insecure as to require his worship? It often perplexes me this notion that's thrown about of infinite God vs. finite creatures. It seems to me that if this were the case, then God must be too powerful to need to exist.
Don't get me wrong, I beleive in evolution. But don't you think god is smart enough to scatter some old bones around? Please, it's not like the most powerful being in the universe would have a hard time fooled a bunch of 2600s, ACs, and trolls, who spend their whole day talking about petrified portmans, hot grits, and how much slashdot sucks.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Hmm, interesting turn of phrase. I have an answer, that many would disagree with. Maybe He doesn't need our worship. Maybe He just thinks that if you MUST worship something, it should be Him above anything else. Not too bad an opinion if your the Creator.
I believe the commandment was "Thou shalt have no other God before Me!" Not, though shalt worship me! See the difference?
Many people forget that almost every religion (except perhaps Buddhism) has a colorful story about the origin of the universe.
This brings up the question - why should only Christian theology be taught as an "alternative" to evolution? There is no particular reason why it should be the default creationism among the scores of religious theories.
Islam considers that the universe arose out of vapor, Hinduism posits an infinite recursive loop of creation and destruction, and a cherokee religion proposes that the universe was created by a water beetle.
I have no idea what the creation theories are in Zoroastrianism, shintoism, taoism, confucianism, animism, but I'm pretty sure they're wild and wonderful.
Of course, you might say that the majority of Kansas/american students are christian; but then, does the origin of the universe depend on the population % of your local area? that would be quite a theory indeed.
Since proponents of creationism say that kids should be taught both theories and allowed to decide for themselves, we could agree to teach creationism (of all religions). Let's give them the choice, dammit! So....a typical biology book would now have 30+ chapters to discuss creationism theories, and 1 to discuss evolution.(Many countries do this, but they teach them in a class on "World Religions" instead of "Science"; but nevermind, it's the same content, who cares what the class is called?).
Anyway, this brings up another question - why offer "alternatives to science" only on evolution? Since so many people believe creationism should be taught in schools in *science* class, why not teach the biblical concept of oceans and the earth as an alternative to geology (noah's boat and the parting of the red sea are guaranteed to be crowd pleasers in comparison with boring cross section charts of the earth)? Is there any reason why only evolution should be presented with an alternative? After all, nobody has gone to the center of the earth or the sun and REALLY proved what's there; they are merely theories speculated upon by scientists, and they often turn out to be wrong.
Can some proponent of creationism answer these questions? Thank you.
w/m
Forgive me for believing I know what the actual issue is here, but I see that I am not alone. :)
The state of Kanas's decision has nothing to do with choosing an accurate (read as "correct," "righteous," or "scientifically provable") account of the development of beings on Earth and the planet itself.
The issue is: Who shall decide what can be taught in the classroom? Not what shall be taught. Is it the federal government? The state? Or the local boards of education? Imagine a school district in Texas in which 80% of the students speak Spanish as their first language. Do you force them to learn English because it is the most popular language in the country? Or do you allow them to continue speaking Spanish, preventing them from learning what you think will allow them to better adjust to and interact with the world?
If you chose English, you probably also chose federal or state government. If you chose Spanish, you probably chose local control. One can obviously see the correlation to the teaching of creationism or evolution or any other theory. Some of you actually appended the word "theory" to the Big Bang. I'm not sure why, as you describe it as truth. In the classroom, teachers do not offer a disclaimer that the Big Bang theory is a theory based on scientific evidence, but that does not mean it is more "true" than a theory based on different system of reason.
No, what is taught is: scientific reason = truth. Now, before you flame me, I am an atheist who believes in so much of science, and I believe in the theory of evolution. Some of you have said that what is dangerous is allowing children to believe these opposing theories and that they should come back to the real world. Of course, the "real world" is based on your system of rationale, not theirs.
If you study the genealogies of the developments of structures of reason, you may believe that ours comes out of the Age of Enlightenment, when science became the structure of truth in order to offer a model which opposes religious dogma. The "problem" our country faces is that we are the only country in the world where those who do not want to submit to this system of rationale have a voice. Teaching evolution as the only possible truthful story to the history of the Earth is not at all different from what the pseudo-communist countries did (read: authoritarian education) during the Cold War. It may sound incredible to you or me to want to teach creationism or any other theory, but the fact is, this issue is only an issue because it calls on all of us to decide whether we want what is taught to our children to be controlled by our communities or by those in charge of our government. It's amazing to me how many so-called "liberals" (and, as a Green party voter, I consider myself one) out there, who speak of human rights, justice, equality, and diversity, are angry when a community wants to teach a theory which says, "Our beliefs lie in a different domain."