Slashdot Mirror
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional
An anonymous reader writes "MSNBC reports that a judge in Atlanta, GA has ruled that a sticker placed on all textbooks in Cobb County stating that 'Evolution is a theory, not a fact,' is unconstitutional, and ordered that all stickers be removed."
Finally a bit of sense in the courts. :D
404 Error:
oh wait, this is isn't Fark
The statement on the front of the book, whether motivated by religion or not, is completley true. Evolution IS a theory, and not a fact.
I don't know which side of the debate is dumber. The state, the evolutionists, the judges, or the creatonists.
Glad to see this ridiculous disclaimer get darwinned.
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot
Your post's subject answers that correctly. After all, this is Georgia we are talking about here.
A blog like any other.
creationism is also just a theory, not a fact. not saying it isn't true eitherway, but it's impossible to prove wrong, or correct. so it will remain a theory forever...
How the hell do such unbalanced people get into a position of power where they can approve these labels in the first place?
Get the jerk-offs out of office. Remember it's your tax dollars that get wasted on their zealous religious efforts.
theory Audio pronunciation of "theory" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. theories
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
where are your test results? I'd like to see em'
Evolution can be proven, in a way, it just can't be proof enough that it would be enough to say that evolution is a law. Evolution is a theory....the sticker is right.....and the court was wrong, in my humble opinion. This is not over by any means.
Gorkman
In the name of plano-terrestrialists everywhere, I demand that all globes, maps and atlases include a disclaimer stating that the idea of a round earth is only one of many possible theories.
Furthermore, we demand equal time in the classroom to discuss our alternative theories of geography.
My rights don't need management.
evolution is not a theory, it is a principle reproduced and observed in the labratory and is applicable to more than just biological systems. they need to clarify what they really mean by evolution, but then that would be exposing their true religious robot nature.
... on both sides of the issue. All this is not going to make a bit of difference in anyones mind, least of all the little knucklheads who have to read those textbooks. It's all posturing and symbolism and a big waste of time.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
Courts lately keep doing the right thing.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I'm not defending either side here...but how exactly does one call this a "creationist textbook sticker?" I've heard many evolutionists declare evolution as only theory and not fact as well...
ok, it's a theory, I think most of slashdot agrees on that one. now do we need warning stickers on every text book that contains a theory! science books would take on an entire new meaning. half the pages would contain the stickers for the remaining half of the book, containing the forbidden 'theories'
How is this "creationist"? Evolution is a theory, not a fact, and as with all scientific theories, should be presented as such.
Is there a better way to teach scientific thinking to students than to emphasize "what you are learning is not final"?
0x0D 0x0A
Dear Creationists,
We'll put these stickers on our science textbooks when you put "God's existence is a theory, not a fact" on your bibles.
> So is Intelligent Design, which is gaining creedance [sic] as an
> alternative theory.
Not much of a theory, because it's assumptions aren't falsifiable. It's an idea, but it's not science.
That said, evolution IS just a theory - but so is everything else in a science book, whether or not it isn't well stomached by fundies.
Teacher: Class, today we are going to study Creation. A long time ago, God, who cannot be quantified or proven to exist or not to exist, created life using supernatural powers that cannot be explained by science.
Student: Will this be on the test?
Teacher: Will what be on the test?
Unknown host pong.
Anyway, that doesn't mean creationism isn't just a theory as well. That's all we have, theories. Anyone saying evolutionism or creationism or whatever is a fact shouldn't be taken seriously.
+1 for creationism!
:-/ I am kinda split if it is a good thing to make "keep open mind" stickers unconstitutional.
Read it carefuly, actually it is -1 Creationism. They are ruling creationist's stickers unconstitutional, though wierdly enough part of me feels like it is also "-1 Free Speech".
-Em
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
Stupid religious nuts
Since putting the sticker violated rules (2) and (3), it was deemed to be unconstitutional.
"When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
Well, when they put similar notices in Physics textbooks that gravity is a theory, not a proven fact, I'll stop complaining.
All's true that is mistrusted
Yes, evolution is a theory. Gravity is a theory. The big bang is a theory. Intelligent design isn't a theory; it's a story. There's a difference.
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
Really? Not in the scientific community. They use something called the "Scientific Method" to test and confirm hypotheses. As I recall, ID does not use the method.
(Alternate) Textbook disclaimers.
If I had a kid in school in that area, I would so stick some of those in his books...
This space doesn't permit the degree of mockery your post deserves, alas.
The difference between evolution as a scientific theory and ID as a "We're a theory, too, really!" is that evolution derives from observation and application of the scientific method and will be changed as more data becomes available. ID, on the other hand, is derived from a book written with the advice of an invisible friend in the sky and will resist with all its might new data -- like observed evolution.
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
(no pun intended... really)
I for one would be for these stickers if similar disclaimers were placed on bibles (I would vote for for "should not be taken literally"). But that would never happen. As long as scientists aren't busting into sunday schools and inflicting their beliefs there I say the churches should stay out of the classrooms.
Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
And gravity is a theory too.
/Jumps from the window/
Ouch!
It's been covered many times before
Creationism and it's jumped up little brother Intelligent Design would be hard put to prove themselves as a Hypothesis.
People who misuse the language of science in order to try to disprove something should be pointed and laughed at, rather then engaged in debate.
Learn the ground rules first people, otherwise you come across as a fool.
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
No mention of creationism... no mention of God. It only states that Evolution is a theory regarding the origin of living things which is absolutely true. Why is this world trying to abolish critical thinking?
What I'd like to know, is why reality actually exists.
What is it then? It is called the Theory of Evolution, yet it does not fit the definition for a theory? WTF? Oh wait, here's a more complete definition.
One is fact, one is fiction... It does not matter how much we argue or what the courts rule. We all will know which one is true and which one is false in the End.
can be found here.
"When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
alert alert!
A theory may be inside this textbook!
You may be forced to think for yourself!
Don't read this textbook, instead keep on blindly swallowing the lies spread by your religious overlords so they can remain in control of you!
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
It is not that it is a perfect theory; it is that it is the *best* theory. Same is true for physics, geology, astronomy, etc. The best current theory *is* the truth, until a better theory is found. Or, as close to the truth as human minds have yet been able to see.
Creationism works like this. God is infinite. Therefore, to represent God, we will use an infinite series: .... = 0
... = 0
.... = 0
... = 0
0 + 0 + 0 + 0 +
1 - 1 = 0, so logically it follows that:
(1 - 1) + (1 - 1) +
Removing the parentheses:
1 - 1 + 1 - 1 +
Adding new parentheses:
1 + ( -1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) +
Simplifying:
1 = 0
Thus, God can create the universe out of nothing.
QED
God could not be reached for comment.
Unknown host pong.
Fundamentalist Christians who are scared by reality and must insist that everyone must be like them to validate their religion and feel secure once more.
I see no problem with these stickers. As long as there is a similar sticker inside every Bible claiming "Creationism is a theory, NOT a fact."
I think the disticntion is really scientific theory (falsifiable) and just random therory.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
This must be a huge ploy of textbook printers -- Now schools have to buy the all new editions that say "Fact of Evolution" instead.
Creationism is a theory that is unprovable except by the appearance of a "supreme being," which is documented only by ancient and contradictory sources. It is speculation.
Evolution is testable. Carbon-dating, empirical observation, archaeology, and genetics all indicate that evolution has taken place from more primitive forms of life to those seen today. It is a theory.
The term theory has been coopted by religious fundamentalists, and twisted it to mean something it's not. Good science is based on weeding viable theories from speculation.
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
ID is not a theory and it should have no place in our schools. In order for something to be a scientific theory it needs to be subjectable to experimentation. It needs to be able to be proved wrong and the experiments need to be able to be reproduced by peers.
There is no way to rigorously apply the scientific method to ID so it will never be a scientific theory.
yes, thank you. And to follow up, my work on creationism has revealled not only how to prove reproducibly that god created the universe in 7 days, but what brand of underwear he was wearing at the time.
The only way we can make progress on any theory is with an open mind. After all, that's what allowed the theory of evolution to come about in the first place. It's not like the label said that the students should consider the alternative of creation.
Furthermore, there are many scientists at the highest level who have questioned the theory of evolution, and far from all of them are creationists. Anyone who truly wants to advance science and has a degree of humility could readily accept the contents of that label at par.
Go ahead and mod my opinions down, as is so typical in the slashdot forum. It will only make me think moreso than ever that evolutionists are not above engaging in the occasional witch hunt, just like any other, um...religion.
Read my sig if you like, but I'll never see yours, thanks to Discussions, Viewing, Disable sigs...
The statement on the front of the book, whether motivated by religion or not, is completley true. Evolution IS a theory, and not a fact.
Then I want a sticker in all bibles: "God is a myth, not a fact", and that statement is also completely true.
You can't take the sky from me...
Cobb County is not part of the City of Atlanta. Cobb hates Atlanta. Just look at this week's Creative Loafing to see what a difference there is between Atlanta and the Bush voting, religious right sprawl that surrounds it. The city school board has nothing to do with this. It is the suburbs, not the city!
Technically evolution is a theory, not a LAW of science. but i dont think i see where the unconstitutionality comes in. of course these days judges dont interperate law, they make thier own. and these laws are on thier views of right or wrong, which may or may not be right or wrong.
Its about time that the US law stripped bare, because this is just one more example of how extremism is choking the air out of society.
Yes, its fundamentally wrong to put idiotic messages on all school books, yes its wrong to give children ideas of fantasy, and ludacrisyin a center of learning, and yes its done because of religon. but "so is life" and we cant go mandating what actions people are allowed to do. a better action would be to discipline whomevers decision it was to put the stickers there in the first place. this is DOE's job, not the courts.
FGD 135
So is Intelligent Design, which is gaining creedance as an alternative theory.
And the Young Earth theory is gaining creedance... among kooks. I'd like to see hard facts supporting ID.
Trolling is a art,
I happen to live in Atlanta these days and the thing that upsets me most is how much of a waste of money this whole ordeal was.
Georgia has enough money problems (and education problems) without having to waste money on stupid stickers and the legal battles caused by them.
Yes, Evolution is a Theory. So are a lot of other things presented in that book and other science text books. Do we need to put stickers on all our books for each theory they contain now? This is rediculous.
Hear, hear. I would be much happier seeing a large banner in a science room stating something similar - though not evolution targeted - than to see it on specific books. To single out individual subjects in this manner is preferential and inappropriate.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
You may be of the opinion that there is a God, er, I mean "Intelligent Designer" (to use your code word) behind all of this, and you may be right - but there's no observable evidence of this, just a guess. That makes intelligent design your hypothesis, not a theory.
Sorry.
There is an abundance of evidence to support it.
There has yet to be discovered any evidence to authoritatively disprove it.
But it's still _JUST_ a theory.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Oh Jeez... not this shit again. "Theory", as used in science, is not the same thing as "wild ass guess" (as the word is used in common usage). The difference between a theory and a law is that a law can be absolutely proven, a theory cannot. But just because evolution cannot be proven with absolute certainity, does not mean it is scientifically solid.
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
ID is not a theory and it should have no place in our schools. For something to be a scientific theory it needs to be subjectable to experimentation. It needs to be able to be proved wrong and the experiments need to be able to be reproduced by peers.
There is no way to rigorously apply the scientific method to ID so it will never be a scientific theory.
Why do school boards have to keep embarassing us all with this shit? Evolution is one of the most successfull scientific theories EVER. You might as well say that gravitation is just a theory.
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing.
Oh, science is a democracy now? I'm supposed to let the mouth-breathing, troglodytic masses who can't be bothered to learn what an allele is have a say in the science education in public schools? Why does the fact that a large portion of the world is too stupid / lazy / superstitious to learn about evolution matter to you?
All's true that is mistrusted
It is not so much -1 Free Speech, as -1 Pointless Vandalism.
Even though in the case of the schools, the adminstrators were encouraging their use (which should have had them removed from any educational capacity IMHO), the "faithful" were encouraged to go beyond this and put their stickers on books in stores and public libraries.
That is criminal vandalism, and by bringing this Court ruling in, it may discourage it somewhat. That is a good thing.
I don't want to accept gravity. It's such a downer.
Why is evolution more disproven than proven at this point in time? Have you actually read anything about it?
Tell me exactly which of the following statements you disagree with:
1) Different individuals of the same species have different traits.
2) Some traits can improve an individual's success in life (i.e. chance not to die).
3) Living individuals are more likely to reproduce than dead ones.
4) Parents pass on traits to their children.
Logical conclusion: successful traits are passed down to offspring.
OK, so the exact model of evolution is not known in all cases. This doesn't mean that the core idea of evolution is incorrect.
I suggest reading http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ as an introduction to the topic, and also a dispelling of common misconceptions about evolution.
...because it isn't scientific.
you can't test it.
it is, by its own definition, magic.
creationism isn't a scientific theory, so it doesn't deserve equal time with genuinely scientific theories.
Modern Science uses the MODIFIED Scientific Method where a new first step has been added that check to see it what they are checking can take away their funding. If they get a yes on this portion they ignore the rest of the SM and say the idea will never work...
Shinto
Seems that the "vocal special interest group" mentality was at work here. 2000 parents bitched that the book contained "evolution" and needed a warning label. The school district attempted to dodge what probably would have become a (cl)ass-action lawsuit. They seem to have made matters worse, garnering national attention.
They had a flaming bag of dogshit tossed on their doorstep, and they made a choice as to which foot to stomp with. If they'd decided to do nothing, they get sued. If they put the current sticker in, they get sued (albeit by a different group.) If they changed the wording to say something like "all religion is theory, as is evolution; decide for yourself" they'd get sued too. A better solution would have been to show the bitching parents the door, and remind them that they can always home-school the little hellions if the parents don't like the public school curriculum. At least then the school district could have stood up in the courtroom (for the inevitable lawsuit) and maintained that "we will not endorse religion; any of them." A lawsuit was pretty much inevitable. I don't think they chose the right one, though.
This is such crap. The stickers read "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." Can someone point out to me where that says anything about intelligent design or creationism? Evolution as taught in many text books is not proven. You can show me skeletons of what are supposively pre-homo sapeien creatures, but you cannot demonstrate to me that happening! Evolution is a theory. I believe every scientist should admit that. Maybe it is a correct theory, but it is a theory.
So... Is the part of the Constitution you believe it contradicts is the part saying, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Can someone explain to me the connection between a sticker saying evolution is a theory and that first amendment?
-Tim
Institute for Creation Research, check it out.
the Political Inquirer
I know it is popular to call atheism a religion, but that doesn't make it true. That is like calling the lack of atmosphere an atmosphere.
If I have a religion, as in what I believe in, I'd call it the scientific method. And my god would be Truth.
You're seriously mistaken. Many of the world's religions, while believing in a Creation myth of some kind, do not believe that humans were created as they are today by some deity in the past.
Notably, Hinduism/Buddhism make no specific mention of the human species in creation, nor do Shintoism or Zoroastrianism (still alive, believe it or not, although I may have mispelled that).
Moreover, most protestants actually believe in a non-literal form of biblical interpretation, which could accomodate evolution as the mechanism by which God created Mankind (they would simply either dispute Natural Selection, or argue that the world was shaped so that Natural Selection could only result in the human species).
It is in fact only conservative Christians/Jews/Muslims who really have a problem with evolution in concert with creationism.
"Stumble before you crawl"
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
By that logic, you are declaring Evolution a religion...
I'm doing no such thing. You're confusing analogy with equivalence.
My point is that Christianity (specifically, Creationistic Christianity) is going outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour by trying to intrude on other disciplines. If the converse were done to them and their bibles, hopefully they could see the error in their ways.
Unlikely, though. Christianity's biggest problem, as Joseph Campbell pointed out, was that for Christians it's more important to believe the existence of Jesus, Adam and Eve, Satan, etc. than it is to understand the meaningful significance behind them.
There is a difference between a scientific theory and other theories. A theory can only be scientific if it has not been disproven. As such, evolution remains a scientific theory, but an earth centered universe does not. By the creationists logic, my donut-shaped universe theory is just as valid as Einstein's theory of relativity.
What we have here is a word "theory" which means different things in different contexts. Like with so many other things, psuedoscience creationists have sought to confuse the true in-context meaning of words in a way that "proves" their point.
bit trollent
Just look at what these brilliant scientists of tomorrow have discovered
1st Place: "My Uncle Is A Man Named Steve (Not A Monkey)"
One of my personal favorites
2nd Place: "Women Were Designed For Homemaking"
Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker.
(P.S. that site is for real)
Evolution is a theory. What's the beef? To re coin a coined phrase?
This
Intelligent design cannot be subjected to any elements of the scientific method; it is a totalogy, a truisim, it is all based on faith w/o evidence.
For this reason, it cannot be considered an alternative theory to evolution. Evolution is a theory, yes -- but creationism is not.
Here in Ontario at least we keep science out of the religion classes, and religion out of the science classes -- its like keeping geography out of gym, or mathematics out of english literature. Separate fields of study.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Buddhism has no creation story as far as I know. I haven't encountered one yet.
This is only partly insightful:
True : The theory of evolution is a theory. But do not forget that a scientific theory is a complex set of hypotheses that have not been falsified and that have been corroborated by multiple independent observations. "Theory" is not a negative term in science!
False : The so-called intelligent design "theory" and all forms of creationnism are NOT scientific theories. A scientific theory must have one quality that is often forgotten: it must be possible to prove that it (or any of the hypothesis that it contains) is wrong, to falsify it. Since it is impossible to prove that God (or any other supreme being) does not exist, it is also impossible to prove that creationnism is wrong within a scientific framework.
This is a thus a pointless debate because evolutionnary biologists are talking about science, while creationnists are talking about faith. Science and faith should be clearly separated. end of story.
Evolution IS a theory, and not a fact
Evolution is a theory and a fact.
The court opinion stated that they had no problem with stating that evolution is a "theory", using the scientific definition of "theory". But, in stating that evolution it is "not a fact", they are invoking the popular definition of "theory", which means "speculation".
Ultimately it was decided this was a violation of the Establishment clause, because it was religiously motivated.
Imagine there was a religion that strongly believed God wants us to smoke tobacco. So, they put stickers in biology books saying "the link between tobacco and lung cancer is a theory, not a fact".
That would be a violation of the Establishment clause.
MOD PARENT UP!!!! If your afraid science is going to teach your childred the truth (or at least an observable theory) then take them to private school. You have that right, and I have the right to keep your mind-controlling retarded beliefs out of public schools. deflin39
You *really* need to watch this show:i c=c
http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?top
Saying it's only a theory is like saying gravity is only a theory. Evolution just happens to be the *only* theory that fits the facts, and yes, there are more facts than I have space to mention which will lend credence to the theory.
On a lighter side, maybe they should teach the Hitchhiker's guide theory of the earth, after all, all theories are on equal footing? Right?!?!
I don't get it.
Sounds a lot like Slashdot.
Here is a link to a series of articles at the American Institute of Biological Sciences. The articles discuss both points of view.
Strange that just recently we were discussing how the length of the day had changed by 3 microseconds (due to the Indonesian earthquake). In "Inherit The Wind" one of the key arguments was that a day could be of indeterminate length; 24 hours or 2 billion years.
The reason there is a huge problem with that sticker is that its wrong in every single degree. No matter what religion you follow, evolution is not something that can possibly be questioned. Evolution is a fact, because it is a simple observable phenomenon. Natural selection, as much as I like it, is a theory. Evolution is observed, documented, and easily seen, but the mechanism of evolution (which is natural selection) falls under the term theory.
i actually read something about this the other day while sitting at the dentists office. it was about how we treat infections and diseases with medicines, and then the germs evolve to become resisant to that drug. just a thought
Creationism stipulates that *EVERYTHING*, human beings, animals, plants, matter, space, and even time itself were created by a supreme being.
ID stipulates that the human race was designed by someone else, most likely by manipulating the genes of a sampling of creatures on this planet to produce new species for some unknown purpose.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
If the books contents are written so as to imply that evolution is fact then such a sticker is probably appropriate.
If however the book glosses over all theories as fact then the sticker is innappropriate for singling out evolution and a more general sticker (or preferably a different text) would be appropriate.
If no such glossing over is done then the sticker is innappropriate.
Any science book however should teach that theories are there to be challenged by scientific means. Science's strength is that theories can be improved upon or replaced when a demonstrably better (not merely "alternate") theory eventuates.
Science should be proud of it's theories, proud that they represent accumulated knowledge and proud that science is honest enough to let them go if we get something better (not merely "alternate").
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
So is Intelligent Design,
Err Wrong. Intelligent Design had credence as a theory, until someone came and showed a simpler theory, that still explained everything... one that had things that could actual be tested for (although not as easily as some other theory's like gravity) Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, rather it is a philosophy... the difference is, one can be tested, and has been, and has never been disproven, where as the other can't be tested, but people believe it anyway, because their parents told them to.
WANNAWIKI Wannawiki WannaWiki WANNAWIKI!
I found this in an earlier article on slashdot (the one where they asked a grip of scientists what they believe without being able to prove).
This was spot on for me, and since we're in the smart room right now with this article, I thought I'd share. It's a wonderful explanation of why critical thinkers can still have faith.
----------------
TOR NØRRETRANDERS
Science Writer; Consultant; Lecturer, Copenhagen; Author, The User Illusion
I believe in belief--or rather: I have faith in having faith. Yet, I am an atheist (or a "bright" as some would have it). How can that be?
It is important to have faith, but not necessarily in God. Faith is important far outside the realm of religion: having faith in other people, in oneself, in the world, in the existence of truth, justice and beauty. There is a continuum of faith, from the basic everyday trust in others to the grand devotion to divine entities.
Recent discoveries in behavioural sciences, such as experimental economics and game theory, shows that it is a common human attitude towards the world to have faith. It is vital in human interactions; and it is no coincidence that the importance of anchoring behaviour in riskful trust is stressed in worlds as far apart as Søren Kierkegaard's existentialist christianity and modern theories of bargaining behaviour in economic interactions. Both stress the importance of the inner, subjective conviction as the basis for actions, the feeling of an inner glow.
One could say that modern behavioral science is re-discovering the importance of faith that has been known to religions for a long time. And I would argue that this re-discovery shows us that the activity of having faith can be decoupled from the belief in divine entities.
So here is what I have faith in: We have a hand backing us, not as a divine foresight or control, but in the very simple and concrete sense that we are all survivors. We are all the result of a very long line of survivors who survived long enough to have offspring. Amoeba, rodents and mammals. We can therefore have confidence that we are experts in survival. We have a wisdom inside, inherited from millions of generations of animals and humans, a knowledge of how to go about life. That does not in any way imply foresight or planning ahead on our behalf. It only implies that we have a reason to trust out ability to deal with whatever challenges we meet. We have inherited such an ability.
Therefore, we can trust each other, ourselves and life itself. We have no guarantee or promises for eternal life, not at all. The enigma of death is still there, ineradicable.
But we a reason to have confidence in ourselves. The basic fact that we are still here--despite snakes, stupidity and nuclear weapons--gives us reason to have confidence in ourselves and each other, to trust others and to trust life. To have faith.
Because we are here, we have reason for having faith in having faith.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Has there been a ruling about removing the stickers on the really old chemistry books about the phlogiston theory?
"I'd like to see hard facts supporting [Intelligent Design]"
Until someone fronts up with the CVS repository its really hard to tell if theres been any intelligent design.
I mean, take MS Windows for example.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
The Intelligent Design movement has opened my eyes. I realize that although I believe that evolution explains why the living world is the way it is, I can't actually prove it. At least not to the satisfaction of the ID folk, who seem to require that every example of extraordinary complexity and clever plumbing in nature be fully traced back (not just traceable back) along an evolutionary tree to prove that it wasn't directed by an invisible hand. If the scientific community won't do that, then the arguments goes that they must accept a large red "theory" stamp placed on the evolution textbooks and that alternative theories, such as "guided" evolution and creationism, be taught alongside.
:
So, by this standard, virtually everything I believe in must now fall under the shadow of unproveability. Most importantly, this includes the belief that democracy, capitalism and other market-driven systems (including evolution!) are better than their alternatives. Indeed, I suppose I should now refer to them as the "theory of democracy" and the "theory of capitalism", to join the theory of evolution, and accept the teaching of living Marxism and fascism as alternatives in high schools.
Written by
CHRIS W. ANDERSON
Editor-In-Chief, Wired
Or more interesting what is the hypothesis that we can test? We have yet to see anything out of the "evolution didn't happen" camp to even test.
The continuing problem with religous conviction is that it presupposes fact. Science, on the other hand, assumes denial. If you come up with the hypothesis "God's tears cause thunder." you need to prove God. You may be able to (as possibilty may allow) but you need to be smarter than _many_ that have come before you.
If we reduce the argument to "Variation of life on earth couldn't exist without a guiding ${THING}". Then presumption is that ${THING} is god, but you can't do that because your hypothesis didn't include that. Change the hypothesis to include God and you are stuck with the proof-of-god conundrum again.
At some point you have to include assumption which isn't science, rather subjective reality. You can not prove it objectively, therefore we can't agree on it and it is not testable.
The statement on the front of the book, whether motivated by religion or not, is completley true. Evolution IS a theory, and not a fact.
Evolution is most certainly a theory but it is almost certainly a fact too. Therefore the sticker on the book is a lie. Evolution has masses of scientific evidence to back it up where as creationism is nothing more than a fairy tail since there is absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up.
> It is not so much -1 Free Speech, as -1 Pointless Vandalism.
More like +1 for pseudo-scientific propaganda.
What's the bet that the stickers are a right bastard to remove? I bet they're going to have to be stickered over.
Gaining Credence? Probably only this sort of Credence:
credence
n.
4. A small table or shelf for holding the bread, wine, and vessels of the Eucharist when they are not in use at the altar.
Let me break it down for you.
Science is developing a theory from known facts. It's called the Scientific Method. You know, Francis Bacon. Maybe you don't.
Magic, I mean Creationism, is trying to find facts to fit a predetermined theory, in this case an ancient story that everything is done with magic. *Poof*
The difference is innate, and despite what many fundamentalist think, science will never be religion. The two are incompatible. Just ask Copernicus.
he strikes a blow for critical thinking, and that is your friend.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
These people are trying to create a chaotic learning environment. When you teach creationism, you are teaching faith. When you teach evolution theory, you are teaching scientific method. Some would argue that creationism could be taught as a form of scientific explanation but the payload is religion which is much too volatile. I doubt there are any evolutionists bombing abortion clinics for the sake of life. Religion spawns fanaticism which unfortunately contains bias, arrogance and closed mindedness.
But not all Christians! Catholicism appears to be somewhat open, mainly saying that evolution was very possible and doesnt necessarilly conflict with Christianity. While looking for a website to back this up, I found this quote: "We now have proof that Roman Catholicism teaches Evolution rather than Biblical Creationism. When you add to this shocking teaching Rome's disrespect for the Bible, you understand that Roman Catholicism cannot be Christian as she claims". Sorry, I read this and it made me mad. If a Christian doesn't take everything in the Bible literally, that person is less Christian?
Whoa, whoa, whoa. They are ruling that stickers saying "Evolution is a theory, not a fact" are unconsitutional. God, the bible, and creationism has NOTHING to do with this.
I do agree: Feelings like -1 free speech to me, beliefs aside.
philosophy. Creationism isn't about science, it is about a philosophy. Get it out of science class!
Should all physics books now have stickers warning that Relativity is "only" a theory?
Einstein's Noble prize was for demonstrating the photoelectric phenomenon.
Broken Hearts are for Assholes. - Frank Zappa
What I found interesting were the online poll results that accompany the article, which divide equally among the two positions, approximately 40% each for "Yes, it violates separation of church and state" and "The board was right to put the stickers in, and the judge was wrong to take them out," respectively. To me - however unscientific the poll itself may be - this shows how polarized our society has become. It is also surprising to me that so many people seem to support intelligent design and creationism. I think this reflects a lack of scientific literacy among the general population, and a dangerous trend towards theological dogmatism.
If the creationists want to have people objectively consider the evidence in favor of creationism using the scientific method, that's good. But it just seems like a childish little potshot to single out evolution for a sticker. If kids really need to be hit over the head that evolution is only a theory then there's something more fundamental that they haven't learned.
Wow! Underwear too? I need to know the brand, since it resisted days of intense heat when all volcanoes around the world were spitting lava, and then intense humidity when God made that super duper rain to fill the oceans! Plus, was it still intact when he stopped to rest at the 7th day?
Why would a text book need a disclaimer regarding one of the theories discussed?
Why is evolution the only theory that needs a disclaimer?
Why is there a sticker warning the user that the book contains material on evolution? Makes it easier to identify when the book burnings start?
The other warning labels I know of regarding content are for sexual situations and offensive language. Why is this scientific theory treated like pornography and obscenity?
You can't take the sky from me...
A quote I've seen attributed to Asimov:
'The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" but "That's funny..."'
Intelligent design/creationism are not falsifiable and do not belong in a science class. They belong in a class studying mythology and fairy tales.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
And, you base this accusation on what? Your personal beliefs? Or, do you see it occur on a weekly/monthly basis during your time as a physicist, biochemist, biologist, or geologist?
...they've been ordered to cover them with these!
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
There's something about the implication of calling it "just a theory" thatis more than a bit insulting. Let's put it this way: do churches want me coming in and putting stickers in the bible saying "The existence of God is just a theory"? How is this any different?
I'm sorry. I've never posted to slashdot before, simply because it wasn't worth it or I didn't have time. But come on! What are all these posts about "evolution has been tested in the labs", "evolution is science", "scientific data tends toward evolution as being true", "creationism is a myth. Name me one. One single evidence "for evolution". Can they reproduce evolution in the labs? No. Could the earth have been around millions, billions of years? No. (Think of the size of the sun millions of years ago! Think of the orbit of our moon, steadily moving away from us! Think of the speed of the spinning earth!). Where are our thousands of missing links? Don't show me one malformed set of bones... if evolution really happened, they should be everywhere! Where are they?! Can Creationism be proved in the labs? No. Is there evidence for Creation? Yes, if you interpret it that way. Sadly, scientists view the Grand Canyon and erroneously claim that millions of years of irrigation led to its creation. Why couldn't it have been a world-wide flood? Why is it that every race on earth has historical data or stories of a one-world flood? Could the Bible be true? Gasp! No, then we'd have to believe all of it. So lets make up something else, something that lets us throw out Creationism and the Bible. Fact is, evolutions is a theory. It requires faith, just like Creationism. Science can be proven in the labs. Creationism is not science. Creationisn is a theory. There is evidence that supports Creationism. Some claim it, too, is distorted. But simply ask yourself: "were you there?". No. If you can't observe it, there is no way you can prove it. End-of-story. To claim that Evolution is not a theory, and to teach it as fact is simply plain wrong. When scientists stoop to falsifying data on a regular basis, something serious must be very wrong. (See link if you're really interested in reading about this....) http://www.evolution-facts.org/
QED.
A scientific theory is an internally consistent model that explains the connections between various facts and evidence. The fundamental trait is that it is subject to test and refinement, and it *MUST* take all evidence into consideration. No fair dismissing awkward facts by just saying "That's merely the work of the Devil seeking to confound us!"
The fundamental problem with faith-based reasoning starting from a literal interpretation of the Bible is that you're saying your God is an idiot. The Bible is badly written, including plenty of internal inconsistencies. If your Bible-limited God was not an idiot, then He would have been aware of information theory even when He was causing the Bible to be written (though we poor and limited humans have only developed the necessary mathematics in the last century), and He would have taken it into account and even used it to "encode" His message in a way that would resist confusion and distortions.
It is *NOT* a coincidence that the religious fundamentalists are most concentrated in monolingual countries (like the US and certain Arab countries). People who are fluent in more than one language will (of course) be especially troubled by the inconsistencies between the translations. (Again, an area where an understanding of information theory could have helped out.)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
...the stickers should have read, "Evolution is a theory, and not necessarily a fact."
It may be a fact that the paint in a can reflects blue light better than any other wavelength, but that can't be proven until the can is opened.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Umm no. Not all theory is scientific theory.
How we know is more important than what we know.
ID stipulates that the human race was designed by someone else
You mean like what the Raelians think? That Aliens did it?
fucking nutjobs.
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
Science is never supposed to call a model facts, no matter how much evidence there is, prove is reason for confidence that a model is correct but the book is never closed. As soon as counter evidence or a more accurate theory is found we can't argue the original is fact and there's no need to change. That is a misunderstanding of science.
Isn't gravity a law, not a theory?
It never ceases to amaze me how dogmatic slashdotters are about their belief in science. You put the right wing christians to shame!
Ugh! Please, someone, anyone, explain to these munchers that in a scientific context, "theory" is not the opposite of "fact"!
*That's* why they shouldn't be allowed to put these labels on books, not because of their religious positions! You need to understand what the words mean before you try to use them.
P.S. I'm a Christian, but this frosts me somethin' awful!
P.P.S. I also get ticked off at scientific types who deny the existence of God because they can't find facts to support it.
P.P.S. I actually think anyone who gets into debates like this (on either side) has completely missed the point no matter which side they are on.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
A minority of people in this country understand the Calculus. They should be the ones who decide what everyone's kids learn in school. So, yes, exactly: a minority should decide what the majority's kids learn in schools everyone's taxes fund. That's because the minority is often smarter.
All's true that is mistrusted
Science based on observation Religion based on faith. I don't see why they can't get along.
Why must certain people take everything in the Bible literally. Cleary much was lost over many translations, so its kinda more of a vague guideline.
And why does evolution go against the scriptures. Surly if it was ID then there where a lot of failures based on fosils. Or where those fossilsjust put there to throw us off course?
Its fairly clear the earth is not longer the center of the universe, but to claim otherwise was hericy in days past.
Times change slowly. I think the church recently apologied to Galaleo.
Heck maybe evolution is the wrong theory, and people in 100 years will laugh at it as we think those models of the atom 200 years ago were foolish. But the scientific method sort things out till we get to the point where buildings almost always stand and things in the world are just a little better understood.
This debate drives me nuts.
>> There are literally tens of millions of pages of information that supports ID. In fact a careful UNBIASED review of such information would be quite enlightening to you I believe.
Well I was at the bookstore the other day and was taken aback by the sheer thickness of the Lord of the Rings books. I believe that your statements apply equally well to JR Tolkien too. Of course, that doesn't make the whole thing true.
The supreme court has said that teaching about the Bible in public schools is acceptable... since it did have a signifigant impact in western history.
They can't perform a sermon, but they can teach it from a historical perspective, and teach how it played a key role in history.
Now does the bible need to carry a sticker that it's a theory and not a fact?
Under the same principle, I'd say it's a fair compromise. Both can't be scientifically proven (at least not yet). Both have lots of believers.
And yes, I'm a catholic.
Awesome sir, awesome =)
WANNAWIKI Wannawiki WannaWiki WANNAWIKI!
To bad they ruled you could not do this because I just had 50,000 stickers printed up that said "Bullshit" that I was going to take to church on Sunday for bible class.
"The difference between a theory and a law is that a law can be absolutely proven, a theory cannot."
I don't think so; a 'Law' in science is most usually an axiom (because it cannot be proven but seems self evident).
Take Newtons umpteenth law of motion "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction"
Try to construct an experiment which would disprove it.
Its logically impossible because the structure of the statement is of the form;
"For every X there exists some Y such that P(X,Y)"
where X is a predicate on X and Y.
which is not disprovable without exhaustive testing case by case.
It follows the exact same pattern as Freuds "Every dream is a neurotic symptom".
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
They are ruling creationist's stickers unconstitutional, though wierdly enough part of me feels like it is also "-1 Free Speech". :-/ I am kinda split if it is a good thing to make "keep open mind" stickers unconstitutional.
Not allowing stickers to be put on textbooks by education boards is not a free speech issue. Creationist stickers were not declared unconstitutional - putting them on student's textbooks is. There is a difference. Just as I am allowed to hang the ten commandments on my wall, I shouldn't be allowed to do so in school.
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
I go to a high school in the Cobb County School System (I'm a senior now), and I'm embarassed that we're even having this discussion. It's especially frustrating for me as my college applications are being reviewed and my school system is in the headlines for making everyone here like a bunch of crazy religious idiots. Not everybody here feels the way these "parents" do about evolution; most of the reaction I see at my school about this issue is disgust and frustration over the stupidity of the whole thing. I hope that this won't negatively impact my future, maybe I'll get lucky and the admissions officers at the schools I'm applying to won't read the news today.
> but the ruling does not change the fact that evolutionary
> theory is exactly that... a theory. So is Intelligent Design,
> which is gaining creedance as an alternative theory.
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, while Evolution is*. You're using "theory" in two different senses in the same sentence. In fact, this is about as close to a logical fallacy as one can get outside of the wild. Gather 'round kids! I recommend you read this book for more insight.
Other examples you could have used with equal credibility are:
1. If you believe in the miracles of science, then you must believe in the miracles of the Bible.
2. Of course they didn't have electricity in the past. In order to have electricity you must have current, which means present day.
Switching to a different definition of the word mid sentence is not just disorienting, but silly.
"Theory" in the vernacular may mean "guess", but in scientific jargon it means roughly a battle-tested hypothesis that describes well-established facts.
I'm annoyed that the MSNBC article didn't make this more clear.
*I've also read some who suggest that Evolution is a fact, but Natural Selection is an example of a theory.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
I'd say that 99.99999% of parents want their kids' teachers to be way above the norm in both knoweldge and insight.
This isn't really about education, it's part of a political war waged by the Poor Persecuted Fundamentalists against the rest of us.
Play Command HQ online
What an utter load of crap. Where in the constitution does it say that you don't have the specific freedom to put stickers on a textbook? Exactly what part of the constitution was violated? And regardless, all theories of creation are just that: theories because we weren't there to witness it. Basically, this judge said 'oh no! free thinking! this sticker might cause a few neurons to fire. we can't have that can we?'
If a million monkeys randomly pounded on keyboards, they would all log into AOL.
I do not think Buddhism is a religion so much as a philosiphy on the path to enlightenment or nirvana. Hinduism does contain creationism. I know of no gods in buddhism (the buddha was a man, not a god).
t m Oh, and please note that there is a huge difference between the two and that they should not be linked together.
About 1000 different ones according to this http://www.unesco.org/courier/2001_05/uk/doss24.h
Can't say much on the protestants.
Let me post this and see what people say. Lets say Creationism is the idea that a supreme being created the universe, the earth and everything here. Now lets assume that it either has a plan and starting things a long and just keeps adjusting minor things as we go (inteligent design). Or just watches us as a "lab experiment" to see what happens. Does any of this mean that creationism is incompatible with either of the other two? After all, Live, the Universe and Everything had to have come from somewhere.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Laws are a type of theory: the type that can be easily expressed in a simple equation.
All's true that is mistrusted
You better laugh when you say that.
Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me
The Christian god is a theory too, and if you're saying this god is telling you and others to "take him serious" I know of a few good men in white coats who can help you.
No penguins were harmed in the making of this post.
Cut and paste to avoid slashdot effect.
Page titled "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory":m l
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.ht
Hence, saying that for sure evolution "is not a fact" at best cannot be proven, at at worst is downright false.
Want more ? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Quote:Really? My impression is that a rather large part of the world's population, quite probably a majority, accept evolution. Let's start with the Chinese, who comprise about a quarter. Add most Europeans and a large percentage of Americans and most Canadians. The only groups that I know of that are generally opposed to evolution are fundamentalist Protestants (Catholics and non-fundamentalist protestants accept evolution - I'm not sure about the Orthodox and monophysite churches) conservative Muslims, and some Hindus. And those Hindus who do not accept evolution have quite a different version of creationism from the Christians and Muslims.
They're taught in Catholic schools, I'll start printing em up eh?
How we know is more important than what we know.
It doesn't.
ID is most roperly somewhere in the middle...
Creationism addresses how _everything_ got here.
ID addresses just how _WE_ got here... just us - Human Beings. Not plants, fish, birds, or anything else... just us.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Read my sig if you like, but I'll never see yours, thanks to Discussions, Viewing, Disable sigs...
Natural Selection happening on a microscopic scale does not in any way prove that we all started as dust and evolved into our current forms. Really all we've observed is the natural selection half of evolution- there's that other part in which one of two like organisms has to mutate first so that there's some difference to select.
Evolution currently only wins because it's more believable than some all-powerful being deciding to create a bunch of weak little pissfreaks and thinking we're special.
but no, facts dont exist.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
That's beside the point. Assuming what you say is true, then the scientific method, if it passes that first step, should still be valid. Also, ID should be able to be able to pass this step, as I'm sure the various Churches would be willing to support it.
The fact, which you so nicely tried to sidestep with your straw man, still remains that ID does not use scientific method.
Exactly. Even evolutionary theory has changed drastically over time. It may be true, but it's not a set in stone fact. Seems like every week a new posting comes out about a new supposed missing link that... wait for it... "revolutionizes evolutionary theory", many times made in hasty delusions of granduer. Are they? Maybe... but lets keep a firm grasp on what is theory, and what is fact.
-=Zeus=And=Hades=-
> Shouldn't the math textbooks have a disclaimer for Pythagoras' famous theorem?
No they shouldn't. Because Pythagoras is openly taught as theorem, whereas macro evolution is blatantly and falsely taught as being fact.
Geesshh!!! Scientists cannot even agree on how old the earth or universe is, yet so many textbooks (and documentaries for that matter) state that such and such events occurred x million/billion years ago as if established fact.
Perhaps they should use words like "estimated to be" or "believed to be"?
I hereby propose the alternative gravitional theory.
.. the evil gravitationalist atheists are trying to make you think there are "fundamental forces" and all.
The is no force of gravity, anyone who believes in a force of gravity is an evil heathen.
God's angels move things towards the earth, God has enough angels to hold things and move them around in the sky. Yes by his word the angel's do everything
But ask anyone and they have no idea why gravity works the way it does.
We need physics books to say taht gravity is just a theory, it cannot be proven that gravity has been happening the same way for millenia or that it will contnue to happen the way recorded in textbooks.
The same way he put fake dinosaur skeletons for us to find, God has made it look like there are objects in the sky that play along with this gravity force. It's all a test to see who the non believers are.
One day, if God gets angry at us he might change how gravity works and we may all float off into space.
-Rev. Anonymat Cowardson
simplify his daily life.
Indeed, I bet that God likes an automatic system that can refine itself. It is boring to listen those complains, like:
monkey, "we want to free our hands!" "try standing up then"
women, "we want our men!" "hey, get viagr*"
^(oo)^pig~
First, if my first step passes they IGNORE THE REST of the SM.
Second, I didn't talk about ID I was talking about the SM.
Please learn to read.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but technically isn't evolution (up to the present time) inable to be more than a theory? To be a law, it would have to be observable (and repeatable?) which is impossible.
Furthermore, even if evolution is observed now, it doesn't prove it existed before.
I'm not sure of the legal ramnifications, but I'm not sure why they make such a big deal about it being a "theory". Most students are taught the differences between theory and law.
What upsets me isn't the inclusion or removal of "theory" literature, but that its necessary. Why not in the book just mention that its a theory, explain that it can't be observed, and leave it at that? Why start a legal flame war?
lol: You see no door there!
That theory is backed by an awful lot of data both observed and learned from repeatable experiments. Damn cultists.
Trolling is a art,
I apologize, I did not realize that. And while I still believe the idea is crap, I don't believe it is as much crap. In other words, I still want to club the people who believe it with a bat, but I wont do a full swing.
WANNAWIKI Wannawiki WannaWiki WANNAWIKI!
I've watched this debate with a great deal of interest and have laughed at the antics of those who want to push creationism on everyone.
I was raised in a Roman Catholic family and went to a Catholic high school. Funny thing is they taught us EVOLUTION, not creationism, in science class. We discussed the creation story in theology and how it was a metaphor for evolution since the people who were inspired to write the Bible didn't have the knowledge to understand evolution.
When will the people who want to put stickers like this in textbooks get the clue that trying to put science under the purvue of religion is a bad idea. Remember what happened to Galileo? When a group of people persecute others that don't agree with their idea of the "truth", we have tyrany.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
There is no beginning in Hinduism, well at least in advaita vedanta; the universe is infinite backward and forward in time.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
I think the orriginal poster is confusing 'the thruth' with 'a theory'. Indeed, evolution is testable, but it could still be proven wrong, or incomplete, in the future. A theory is just an assumption, and if it leads to a contradiction, or if an experiment doesn't fit into the theory, that theory WILL be removed, and replaced with a better one.
In dogmatic religion, if reality doesn't fit the dogma, they just ignore it or twist the facts until it fits the dogma. That's a big difference between science and (dogmatic) religion: the way they treat criticism and fallibility.
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
http://www.talkdesign.org/
Every time I see an article that expresses the differences in opinion between creationists and evolutionists I wonder: "Am I the only person on the planet who can clearly see that they are in no way mutually exclusive?"
Then I realize that it would be very egocentric of me to actually think that I am the only one who sees things this way.
I mean, for me, just looking around at the world around me is proof enough that there is an intelligence that created the universe and myself as well. No "faith" or "belief" is required. It's just obvious.
Isn't it obvious that the universe we live in has been created by an intelligent being and that the mechanism that that being chose to develop this universe can be described by the theory of evolution?
What am I missing here?
It follows from the definition.
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
myth
n : a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain
the world view of a people
Perhaps not in every discussion. But in this case we're talking about placing "intelligent design" on a par with evolution for the purposes of science. Hence this terminology does apply.
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
I don't have a problem with people calling evolution a theory. They are ignorant, and ignorance is the predominant state of mind on the planet. And that includes us slashdotters (excepting UID under 1000, of course).
To willfully ignore the argument behind evolution, to willfully ignore the terms used in science, and to willfully ignore the hard work and thought that brought the modern world the immense luxury available to those fortunate enough to be born in the right places. Which usually includes the people making the arguments.
Evolution is both a theory AND a fact. To clarify, finally, to those of you not in the above category whose ignorance is not willfull: Evolution is a theory because
1) There is a limitation to which man can trust his senses. You cannot prove that this isn't all a dream.
2) There is a limitation to which man can trust the empirical world (I'm getting cartesion aren't I?). We have no way of knowing that the world wasn't made by a malevolent force - satan, the demiurge, or whomever.
All of Science (in fact, almost all of human thought) is subject to those two things. But there is a third
3)Given that the world is not purposefully decieving us evolution happened, period, end of story. But it cannot be empirically demonstrated, or rationally proven that it HAD to. Ergo it is a theory, not a law. Evolution could stop right now, for all we know. But animals change, period, and animals now are the decendents of animals before, shaped by selection and fitness pressures.
TaDa! Now stop spending my tax money on stupid stickers, and spend it on computers in underprivilaged neighboorhoods, teacher raises, and things people need.
Check out Talk Origins.
STFU about slashdot bias.
ID is just creationism with a new label to make it more palatable to the general public and not just fundamentalist lunatics. The only "scientists" working on ID are fundamentalist wack jobs whose PHD's were funded by Sun Moon (famous Cult leader) and others like him in an attempt to build support for ID by getting people with letters after their name say they agree with it even though those people are not actually involved in any "scientific" research, just fundamentalist lunacy.
It's not the only one.
But the overall concept is similar.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
When you follow existing scientific theories down to the bottom, you get to the beginning of the Universe. The current main theory for the beginning of the Universe is the "Big Bang". Before the Big Bang science is stuck. Why the Big Bang occured is no longer physics, but meta-physics. This is why you'll hear people like Stephen Hawking talking about seeing into "the mind of God" when they are talking about really fundamental physics.
The difference between "intelligent design" and "evolution" is that "intelligent design" assumes a dumb-ass god who is not smart enough to have created all of the Universe and all of the things in it by starting from something as simple as the Big Bang. Instead, you want a god who's really just an old guy with a beard who pokes around and doesn't have any more imagination than you do. Oh, and you REALLY, REALLY don't want to be related to monkeys.
Consider the following sentence:
The universe is so complex that it could not have been created without intelligent design.
Now, is God more or less complex than the Universe? If more so, substitute God for "the universe" in that sentence and tell me why it's not true. Here, I'll do it for you:
God is so complex that it could not have been created without intelligent design.
If God is less complex, then what kind of God is that? Intelligent design simply pushes the problem one step further away because they want to hear the word "God" and they don't want to be related to monkeys.
Wow... my first "mod parent up" post. I feel so dirty... it feels... good...
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
So God created the universe by mistake...
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
"Flood myths in various cultures" good reference cheif
"Could you put that in a memo entitled, SHIT I ALREADY KNOW!" - Sarge
Huh? How is this "-1 Free Speech?" No one is being told they can't practise religion, no one is being told they can't teach it. But they are ruling that it is unconstitutional to place a sticker on every copy of a textbook that teaches evolution to say that it's only a theory. This is the same as if the government insisted every copy of the bible or koran be sold with a sticker on it that says "the opinions contained herein are bunk." They can't do that, nor can they mandate stickers on books that teach evolution. It's got absolutely nothing to do with free speech.
By rapidly, do you mean 5 to 6 million years? Here is at least one discussion that reviews the geology of the Grand Canyon. And here is another, by the National Park Service. They use professional geologists to test their theories.
And, please, the next time you plan to rant about Noah's flood, please feel free to post with a user ID.
I've done my research, and it looks like you have as well.
I know that evolution, to a certain extent, is undeniable. Evolutionary changes can be seen even over then span of a couple generations. One example is the falcon (IIRC, but could be another raptor), which has become considerably smaller over the past x number of years.
However, this is simply a size issue. It's not really a significant matter, because the birds can be large or small and it doesn't really matter (in terms of simple existence). If the smaller ones do better, than the smaller ones reproduce. Rather simple.
How many birds do you see with three eyes? I haven't seen a whole lot. And accidentally growing a third eye would be easier that growing the first (the plans are there already).
Now people will say different things. I've seen numbers as short as 300,000 years development of the eye from a light sensitive spot. However, that's just the eye, and not from scratch either. The thing would need the brain to interpret sensory data from that patch, and make it usable enough for the creature to survive longer/better (have more offspring).
And that's just the eye, not all the other systems in the body.
Keep in mind, I didn't say it was _wrong_, I just said it lacks a good enough model to satisfactorily explain everything it needs to. Thus making it a weak theory, or as I, somewhat poorly, called it: "more disproven than proven"
Oh thats right, actually 99% of the population was illiterate, people lived to 30 (if they were lucky!), and it was called the freaking DARK AGES! Not to mention the various 'holy' wars, and the constant persecution for not choosing the right flavor, or not having a flavor of this G-D!
People need to throw off the should of the past opression, and get with it!!
It is more properly an alternative theory to the Big Bang, since it addresses the issue of how _EVERYTHING_ began.
ID addresses how we got to where we are from where we may have been before. This is the same subject that evolution addresses.
It is worth remembering that evolution does not require the big bang theory to be true, nor does Intelligent Design theory require creationism to be true.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Most theories aren't "provable" nor did the previous poster suggest they are. However they must be testable, as the previous poster said "It needs to be able to be proved wrong". It must make predictions which you can go forward and test.
String theory is certainly a very immature theory but people are working on performing tests which could falsify or further refine the theory.
Similarly people do think up ways of testing and refining evolution .
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Well that's obvious, anything that involves God (who is by definition not invalidatable) can not be scientific theory.
How we know is more important than what we know.
At least God is NOT a theory. We might speculate and have theories as to how He created the Universe, but at least we all know one thing - He is constant.
Need an ISP in South Africa?
Facts and theories are completely different concepts in science. Facts are observations; theories are explanations of facts.
Gravity is a fact, or more precisely, a set of facts describing how objects are attracted to each other. General relativity is our best theory for explaining how gravity works. We know that it's flawed, but we haven't been able to come up with a consistent theory of quantum gravity.
Evolution is also a fact. It is the observed change in allele frequencies over time. We've observed species adapting to new situations, and we've observed new species evolving from older ones. Natural selection is our best current theory for how explaining how evolution works.
Neither Creationism and Intelligent Design are theories. They are both myths, which cannot be tested or falsified.
Singling out the fact of evolution or the theory of natural selection is an attempt by American fundamentalists to prevent children from seriously considering and understanding evolution. They do it for the same reasons that people objected to the heliocentric model of the solar system: they think it reduces the significance of humanity so that it's not the most important thing in the cosmos.
Is scientific truth important in this case? Yes, modern biology is based on the foundation of evolution. Look to history to see what happens when dogma trumps scientific fact: google for Lysenkoism, which the dogmatic Soviet interpretation of Lamarck's failed theory of acquired characteristics, that lead to the starvation and death of millions of Russians in the 20th century.
was it still intact when he stopped to rest at the 7th day?
Nah. On the seventh day, God went Commando!
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
In the article, it says 2000 parents complained. This is only problably because this is a highly catholic community and they dont want their chilren believing otherwise. I think that these stickers shouldent have even been put there in the first place. First of all, evolution has been PROVEN to take place in some form or another, from bones and fossles, and whick would you be more inclined to believe - A modern theory with -=*PROOF*=- or a child's story that dates back c. 2000 years ago? I'll admin that i have had wierd dreams of highet powers and crap, but they defy about every scientific law there is. This is a subtle example of church INFLUENCING our government, and the stickers should have been made optional or "opt out"able.
A minority of people in this country understand the Calculus. They should be the ones who decide what everyone's kids learn in school. So, yes, exactly: a minority should decide what the majority's kids learn in schools everyone's taxes fund. That's because the minority is often smarter.
It's no wonder I get trolled when I state that the tax system is a pyramid scheme. The vast majority of the population understands calculus (or diffeq) to the point where they can see the similarity. Yet they're allowed to vote.
I suppose I'm the only one who sees anything wrong with this.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Although I am a creationist myself, I value open-mindedness in education. I do find it interesting that, even though none of them were actually there at the time, the scientific community in general are greatly offended by anyone who suggests that evolution (and likewise, I freely admit, creationism) is unproved and unprovable.
There's only one way to find out for sure - but unfortunately, though we'll all do it eventually, no-one who has done it is currently available for comment.
-- Your mother uses Emacs.
If that's what you think... I'm not going to argue with you.
-Tim
Hrm. True. I had assumed that you were promoting ID by attacking the SM. Meh.
Buhahahaha!!! There's nothing like "coopting" language when claiming others have "coopted" it, is there?
Theory is speculation. Theory is not fact. This thread uses the written English language and, as such, must adhere to actual definitions of words.
Neither creation nor macro evolution (as opposed to micro evolution which is similar to creating breeds of animals or the classic experiment of breeding fruit flys) can be "proven" through documentation nor through duplication.
"Empirical observation" WTF is that? That would be speculative assignment of causational relationship in the absense of direct observation, wouldn't it? That would mean it's...speculation, a guess based on some observed data.
Both creationism and evolution are conjecture whose proponents cite various facts, observations, and probablilities to promote the supposed legitimacy of their claims.
Your post is intellectually dishonest.
This does not bode well for my cause...
That is what is the real motive force in so-called evolution. Not preditor/prey, but a growth in quality and greatness and magnificence and that which is good and spiritual and best.
Mumbo
fucking
Jumbo
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
gawd damn! I loved this!.. although I wonder if I still have the MP3...
They're taught in Catholic schools, I'll start printing em up eh?
Catholic schools aren't taxpayer dollars. Oh wait... *THAT'S* why all the liberals want school credits and vouchers: so they can start reaping the profits from lucrative book printing deals.
I saw this ages ago...
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
I can't say it better than this post did, so I will simply link to it.
If we want to have warning stickers attached to everything that is a theory (including gravity) then we can at least have a conversation about this - but this was clearly a case of trying to confuse and influence those reading the textbooks. In order to see it a different way, simply reverse the situation. What if, in San Francisco, they started putting stickers on textbooks that said the following:
This book makes references to God. There has been no testable proof that God or any other form of supreme being exists throughout human history.
Is it true? Yes. Would putting such a sticker on school's textbooks have a motive other than the simple conveying of a fact? Yes.
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
No they don't.
Carbon dating works by the guess that decay rate of C-14 decay is known for things thousands of years ago. It isn't.
Expirical observation, archaeology and genetics show that the universe came into being via creationism. It's obvious. It's only the misinterpretation of the data and the steadfast stubborn refusal to accept that creation was possible that evolution becomes plausible.
Sorry, you've been brainwashed to think otherwise
That is a fair argument, but the fact is we've all seen gravity in action way more than we've seen evolution in action.
Maybe you're right though; I don't know.
-Tim
Facts do exist. The scientific community regards evolution as a fact. Natural selection is merely a mechanism or a way of describing how what is happening is happening. Evolution is as much of a theory as a tree has bark is a theory. Evolution is simply an observation that species change over time and new species are formed (if you do not believe new species are formed, then you believe that 1 million years ago every species that exists today existed back then). HOW this happens is what the theory is.
Both creationism and evolution are conjecture whose proponents cite various facts, observations, and probablilities to promote the supposed legitimacy of their claims. Excuse me, but what facts do creationists call upon to promote their claims? Evolutionists have scientifically proven data whereby they can show that evolution is a sound explanation for the natural world. Creationists cannot.
"Alle reden vom wetter. Wir nicht." - SDS Sozialistischer Deutscher Studentenbund.
j00 4r3 3n73r1ng l337 w0r1d.
Do you live in Cobb County? Because the school superintendent also wanted the word "evolution" to be replaced with "biological changes over time". The whole thing is caused by people here misunderstanding that creationism isn't a theory. It's an ongoing argument propogated by media and people who think media coverage = credibility. If you catch the local religious stations here it would make your stomach turn to hear the logic behind the "fight".
BTW, facts are used to confirm a hypothesis and move it to theory status. Just shows that those that came up with the text don't understand science at all.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
A lot of publicity surrounds the issue of evolution vs. creationism (or intelligent design), and no other alternatives are being publically discussed. There is a very clear association between proponents of alternative views of creation and the rise of christianity in america. In light of this, stickers decrying evolution carry an intrinsic association with creationism, intelligent design, and also bibilical literalism and religious fundamentalism (though of course not all anti-evolutionists are fundamentalists). It is absolutely true that evolution is a theory, but the currently debated alternatives are motivated by religion and very poorly supported using what scientists would call scientific approaches.
Would you let a biblical scholar dictate engineering principles to a group of civil engineers about to go out into the world and construct towers and bridges? Uhh, no. Unless the scientific method is revised, these stickers don't belong in a science text book.
After high school, the children are free to run off and join contemporary christian rock bands, and never set eye on a dirty old science book again.
On an interesting note, not all religions seem to come to the conclusion of creationism. Chinese myth has no creator and a popular stance taken by Chinese philosophers (esp. Taoist ones, well Confucian ones don't really care either way since these sort of esotoric things aren't really their concern) over the millenia is that logically an ultimate creator cannot exist. This then leads to extended discussions about why the universe exists, why we exist, the meaning of life, etc. but a creator doesn't feature in these discussions. The guy who 2 000 years ago basically did the Taoist equivalent of editing and arranging the New Testament (and according to rumour, left out tons of chapters he didn't like and wrote some of the most important ones) was an especially strong advocate of this position. Well, this is more philosophical Taoism rather than religious Taoism, but none of the Gods worshipped by Chinese are ultimate "Creators". All have some sort of finite origin and they can also be severely injured or even killed. So Creationism, as advocated by groups in the US, is not even a pro-religion stance, it is a pro-Judeo-Christian religion stance. Creationism is totally against the religious beliefs of deeply religious Chinese (well, actually they don't really care, but I just wanted to make a point).
DON'T have a sticker on the front of the text book singling out evolution.
The "Evolution Theory" is as good as the theory of electricity.
There are two main "theories" bundled together here. Firstly, the theory which explains how orchardists have cultivated redder or tastier apples, and breeders have created dogs with crazy amounts of skin. We can also observe this process happening every day around us with the "evolution" of new strains of viruses and bacteria.
The second part bundled in to what we call evolution is the theory that: we all got here today through the process of the first theory (evolution). This is the part that is hard to prove since none off us were around to observe it. However, the first theory (evolution) explains virtually every aspect of the origin of what we find in the biological world, while the bible is in direct contradiction with most of it. This should be enough for anyone who isn't a nut-bar to decide which theory to teach in schools.
We don't teach the theory that electricity is created by invisible fairies.
Disclaimer: I am a Christian, and I do not believe that the modern evolutionary theory is true.
That said, I don't really have an opinion on keeping or removing the stickers. I guess I just don't think that the stickers mean much of anything one way or the other.
It does seem, however, that there is a misunderstanding of the scientific method (though probably not so much among the slashdot crowd). Many people seem to regard the current theories as unopposable fact. We seem to think we have the world all figured out. I believe that is highly unlikely. Historically, people have always thought their models and theories were rock solid, but now they seem laughable. In the same way, I think both creationists and evolutionist alike will be surprised by what we learn in the future.
In light of this, I think it is important that schools teach the importants of testing and evaluating ALL theories. A sticker on a textbook is certainly not the solution for that.
I'm not quite sure what those who called for the stickers hoped to accomplish. What I hope is that schools do encourage students to come up with new ideas and test existing ones. After all, aren't we all just searching for the true facts?
----
All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
The best current theory *is* the truth, until a better theory is found.
No. This is wrong. The best current theory is not the truth. The best current theory is merely our best educated guess as to how things work. If it were the truth, the true way things worked, then there would never be better theories being found.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
I don't see why Evolution is such a threat to these religions. Sure Bible says the God created Man from Mud and under 7 days. But there a lot of other things the Bible say that have been proven wrong. Like space is a gigantic Ocean. If they get so defensive over this little fact from a story that has been passed down for generations by voice, and translated from on language to an other until at some point someone decides to write it down, then censored to make sure it doesn't conflict with the government. They act like this little passage in the beginning of the bible is the primary point. But they seemed to missed story and the moral of the story behind it. I am a religious person and I believe in evolution (as the most possible theory) I don't see any scientific evidence as something that will push my faith. If you read the New Testament (The part that Christianity is based off of) Jesus himself goes against many of the old teaching that is found in the Old Testament. To let plot holes in a collection of loosely connected story over a thousands of years tempt your faith. Maybe you should reexamine your faith.
To say God will not let his word be corrupted and change then why are there Hundreds if Not Thousands of different religions and sects? And how can you be sure your interpretation is actually the right one or you are the one being corrupted.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
so, evolution is pseudo-scientific propaganda?
i dont understand, what are you trying to say, that ID, is an actual "theory" ?!?
... hi bingo
When do we take *in god we trust* off the dollar bill. Isn't that govt sponsored?
What about "One nation under god" in the Pledge?
What do people swear in on when going under "oath" in the court room again?
And you're telling me a sticker that states a FACT is unconstitutional.. heh..
USA, land of the greedy and oblivious.
The road between democracy and tyranny is paved with secrecy in the name of security.
You are using theory to mean two different things.
1. An explanation of observations that, in a Popperian sense, could be falsified (this is the sense you mean when you refer to evolution); and
2. Inane, superstitious bullshit spoonfed to credulous sister-humping semiliterates to make them believe that they, too, have descended from the trees. This is the sense you use when speaking of Intelligent Design.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
It is Evolution by Natural Selection that is the theory, here. In other words, not the observations, but the explanations.
Frankly, I don't see why the Creationalists don't just say "Things evolve via natural selection according to God's plan." Simple, unprovable, and everyone is happy!
What is the shortest sig that cannot be expressed in fewer than 20 words?
Your theory would have humans being evolved from monkeys. Even worse, God made humans evolve from monkeys. If you examine the creationists arguments, they mostly come down to NOT WANTING TO BE RELATED TO MONKEYS.
If you can come up with a theory that doesn not involve monkeys maybe you'll have a chance at kicking creationists out of the way.
Well that would again guide us wrong about the meaning of the word "theory". Perhaps the sticker could say "The existence of God can't be made into theory"?
It's not obvious that an itelligent designer would allow for 9.0 earthquakes creating tsunamis that kill 100,000+. It's not obvious that an itelligent designer would include cancer in his creation. It's not obvious that an intelligent designer would create a race of beings capable of destroying themselves in their immaturity.
The only way to rationalize those things with an intelligent designer is to imagine that they comply with some sort of divine plan, and if there is a divine plan, it's far from obvious what it is or why it should be that way.
You can't really argue with this, since by arguing, you're acknowledging that an intelligent designer is not self-evident. If it's truly obvious, then no argument is necessary.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Actually, you're wrong. Atheism is not the lack of religion, it is the lack of belief in god(s). An atheist can still be religious (as in the case of some Buddhists). What atheism is, is a belief that one can have, whether you have religious beliefs or not.
However, as to your assertions about logic, you're wrong. You don't need exhaustive testing to disprove a statement like Newton's 3rd law, you just need to find one action, somewhere in the universe, which doesn't have an equal and opposite reaction.
To definitely prove a statement containing the universal qualifier is, on the other hand, pretty much logically impossible. Empirical knowledge is necessarily based on inductive reasoning, which can't be used to definitively prove anything the way you can prove things in formal logic or mathematics (even math proofs using the Axiom of Induction are deductive proofs; the name is misleading.)
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
I think it is funny that the atheists, religion bashers, and all come out on these news items. I find it even more funny that instead of actually replying to the topic whether the sticker is constitutional or not, they instead reply and bash those who believe in God. The news item was about the constitutionality of the sticker. Personally I don't see how a sticker is unconsitutional. The sticker said that "Evolution is a theory, not a fact". Big deal. Evolution IS a theory.... Get a life!
You will never "find" time for anything. You must "make" it.
It stated that the theory of evolution is a theory. Funny, that's what I thought it was. It has always bothered me that so many things that are theories in science are taught as though they are fact.
Does evolution take place? I think everyone but the farthest out there can agree with that. All life evolved to it's present state without any help or direction? Just an accident, as it were? That part is theory and should be treated as such. I don't think that is too unreasonable.
No state religion was established here, no one put "God created the Heaven and the Earth" on page 27, chapter 6. All that was stated is that evolution as an origin of life is a theory.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
It's not like I'm a creationist or anything, but evolution still can't explain flagella motors.
e /e ssays/flagella.htm
http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrav
There's no evolutionary path that leads to something like this.
So "micro" evolution is not enough to prove macro evolution.
It sounds like at least the first step in a proof.
But any discussion that requires "faith" belong in the realm of philosophy not science.
Language word games are for arguing about nothing. (see lawyer joke threads)
Science comes closer to math.
This is my opinion based on what little I know and understand of the rumors and lies Thanks, Randal
Really all we've observed is the natural selection half of evolution- there's that other part in which one of two like organisms has to mutate first so that there's some difference to select.
The rest of us observed both: in order for bacteria to become resistant to an antibiotic or another, a mutation was involved that happened to have that benefic effect, and was thus "selected" by all other strains dying or being overcome by the new strain in that environment.
Hey now! I breath through my mouth due to a nose problem, and I live in a cave ... but I know what an allele is!
Its time to fight against the predjudice towards cave dwelling people with overgrown nasal septa!
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Well Cobb County is actually one of the more intelligent counties in georgia (I live in cobb) but there school system is 2nd to none when it comes to retarted things. BTW tell them they have a massive security hole in their network.... spend 7 days out of school.
Retard did you Read The Fine Article? This ruling was with respect to the Cobb County Board of Education, the body in charge of the PUBLIC, GOVERNMENT FUNDED, schools in Cobb County, GA.
For one, the theory is that humans evolved from apes. Apes aren't monkeys.
Actually, all current great apes evolved from the same ancestors as humans.
I know you didn't specify "current", but let's not allow these implications to float around freely under these circumstances.
You can't take the sky from me...
Is it too much to ask that the school system present multiple "theories" and allow the people to make their own decisions?
Does the school board or the courts have the right to deny a person the ability to make an informed decision?
What right do we as a society have to say what is right and what is wrong?
Quiz time. Define "theory" as used in the scientific community.
Stupid lame-ness filter. I mean really, who doesn't think that I can make a decent post in that few of characters. I'll show you some lame-ness. Okay, it's time to just ramble on about nothing, apparently this lame-ness filter has it in for me, considering the first 5 sentences weren't enough for it.
What?
I totally agree with the ruling since it explicitly mentions a single theory, and does not give a good, general approach to the problem in whole.
If it merely said "ALL theories about the origins of life are at best theories, and never facts or laws," then there would be no problem.
Yes the sticker states the truth that evolution (Darwinism, I suppose... there ARE other theories) is only a theory, but it is the unique discrimination against a single theory that causes conflict, and thus I agree with the ruling.
Would you have any problem with a sticker that said "[Gg]od cannot be scientifically proven to exist in any way, and the existence of [Gg]od should be approached with an open mind."? It does state a fact, but its intent is to in stow a specific mindset into the reader, thus skewing their perspective.
The judge ruled on the sticker and the circumstances surrounding the decision to stick them in the texts. The religous bias in the stickers is perfectly clear considered in the light of the environment in Cobb County. The school board and certain raving local citizens set the table and then brought the stickers to it in a very public way.
The judge showed wisdom by avoiding the same overly-literal interpretaion as the parent. The stickers were stuck in the midst of a chronic public controversy that is *explicitly* fueled by the creationism vs. evolution debate.
Make no bones about it, the creationist viewpoint will only fit in rigid and literal brains. This argument (C v. E) is tired and old. Since the original furor after the origin was published, the theory of evolution has been refined and expanded while biblical lieralists have had to concede philosophical ground at a rapid pace, and all for good reasons.
The literalist world-view is limiting, narrow and dangerous. It cannot concieve of a genuine spirituality that encompases rationality *and* a sense of the mysterious with equal comfort. News of this decision really birghtened my day. With the generally depressing political climate we labor under, it was so nice to hear of someone showing some genuine wisdom. Hooray.
For more on this redistribution of massive amounts of money inhibiting religion, see the position of a Vatican official
Also see my blog story States' "Blaine Amendments" prohibiting vouchers have roots in anti-Catholicism.Unless you attend a private school that requires them as a textbook, but attending a private school would seem to be by choice.
Personally, I enjoy the sticker. I think the whole ordeal points to the fact of how incredibly clueless some people are about truth, theory, and proof. This is inherently a philosophical issue - how do we know what is true? How can we prove things? I find the sticker as an ironic epistemological statement, which works against the people who would use the sticker in the first place. I think the sticker is a great starting point for epistemological discussions regarding creationism, evolutinary theory, science, and religion.
To me it is such a sad thing when science and religion are considered totally opposing viewpoints. Of course, Christian fundamentalism is in radical opposition to most of science (for its dogmatism), but science and religion both need to be recognized as pursuits for truth.
The real questions that need to be debated are the epistemological ones which lie above both science and religion. I find it hilarious that a judge is demanding a sticker encouraging critical thinking to be removed. People need to stop seeing religion as science as oppoising teams like in football. It's incredible to me that many people enthusiastic about the scientific method have such immature attitudes. Now let's all study some philosophy and have critical discussions, rather than root for our team at the Science vs. Religion Super Bowl.
"Documentation and duplication" are, admittedly, hard over geological time. The evidence of evolution is still there, and many genetic phenomena we observe (humans' genetic similarity to monkeys, etc.) suggest that this theory is correct.
Evolution has massive bodies of evidence in its favor, and has shown itself to be resilient in the face of newly discovered facts. Although I will grant you that it is not the provable truth, it is nevertheless an eminently viable scientific theory.
Equating proponents of evolution with a group of dogmatists who hold to a far-fetched idea in the face of (1) the absence of positive evidence of the truth of their particular worldview, and (2) the ongoing resolution of issues they raised to discredit their competition is "intellectual dishonesty."
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
Any decent scientist will tell you that evolution is a totally falsifiable theory, and that in 100 years, it will almost certainly be different than what we think it is now. The same would be said for any facet of science by anyone who actually understands the practice.
The reason you think that there's certainty about evolution is that there's an almost perfect absence of *viable* alternative theories--meaning theories that offer, or may in the future offer, a better explanation of the existing evidence and more predictive power.
Intelligent design isn't a viable alternative to evolution because it's not a better, or possibly better, scientific theory. There's no value at all to teaching it alongside evolution except to shield those who's faith might be weakened by failing to be reinforced by unrelated authorities.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
I'm not sure which is more disturbing;
a) Supreme court telling a local school district (under control of the parents of the affected students) what to do say, effectively taking away local control of said school district
b) Parents of school children in this district are disturbed enough that they feel stickers are needed to clarify their position.
(disclaimer - I am a devout Christian. I see God as Perfection. The perfect Artist, the perfect Engineer. And in His creation I delight in the simple beauty of numbers, their relationship, and the way they effect and can describe the makeup of the universe)
If anyone wants a reasonable discussion of Creationism and Scientific Theory and how they work together, feel free to respond to this post.
Oh wait, this is Slashdot. My bad.
I'm not crazy,I'm actively irresponsible.
How on earth did this get modded to a FIVE Informative?! I wonder if any of you who throw the 'Creationist' card around realize what the court actually SAID. "ATLANTA, JAN. 13 - Despite ruling that "fostering critical thinking" about evolution "is a clearly secular purpose," and agreeing that the Cobb County, Georgia school district had secular, not religious reasons for adopting a textbook sticker dealing with evolution, a federal judge today struck down the sticker as unconstitutional."
In the US you can't even get a book or movie called "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" out with that title; you expect our schools to start teaching the philosophy of science?
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
If it said "Evolution is a theory." then that would be okay. But stating that it is not a fact when nobody knows for certain whether it is or not seems rather ignorant to me.
It could be fact, it could be wrong. Don't go saying it's not a fact if you don't know it isn't.
This textbook contains material on gravity. Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding a physical force. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and wha -- whoaaaaaaaaaaaa SPLAT
More like God took a shit; and we're what's on the toilet paper. We're slowly getting flushed into his septic tank while he's going back to get some more tequila and mexican food.
Round two.
I'm f#$king magic!
Since when is the "theory of evolution" not a theory? Since when are theories ever proven? I agree that evolution is very much the accepted scientific theory and I do fully believe it to be very close to the way things happen. I will not however go so far as to say its the "truth". These stickers say what every good scientist should know already. Theories are not truth and you should always approach science with an open mind. Without context they seem harmless to me. Every science text I've ever read started out with the scientific method which pretty much states that you come up with an idea, test it, and so long as it continues to hold up to tests you use it as a model of how things work but you always keep in your mind that if its disproven it is not correct. I think banning the stickers was in some ways silly as they in no way affirm or deny either religious or accepted scientific messages and definitely don't seem to be an abuse of the separation of church and state. In fact they just seem like common sense to me.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
Why not? They already selected your government.
But if we did as you say, power hungry bastards wouldn't be able to manipulate us into maintaining their power over us! Genocidal bastards like Dubya would suddenly be rendered powerless! ... and we don't want that now do we?
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I would like to know how the Cobb County Board of Education is Congress. Barring that, there is no way that those stickers are constitutional.
This should terrify the religious as well as the atheists.
I'd be glad to discuss this with anyone. Here or offline. Email me at churchill@datatek-net.com
not to mention, all of the theories and methods of evolution,which date back to the darwinian times, like patheology or comparative anatomy have physical evidence. Where i sit on the fence is, the common ancestor is ... god himself. He created man in his image, which supports both sides of the theories here, just in different cases. This could go on for pages and pages, but just something to think about.
"There is no god but Truth, and Science is its prophet."
(Quote is original to me. I used to wear a badge saying this.)
Or, later translated into mangled Latin:
Non est Deus nisi Veritas, et sapientia vates eius.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Year 1882: God is dead -- Nietzsche
Year 1900: Nietzsche is dead -- God
That's funny, but it doesn't actually make any sense when you think about it. Try this:
Year 1882: "God is dead" -- Nietzsche
Year 1900: "Nietzsche is dead" -- Newspaper
"" -- God
Uh, it's Bush and his cronies who want vouchers
Federal level.
When you figure out what you're talking about, come on back and we'll talk.
You're an AC and, in the midwest, it's the liberals and democrats who keep whining that they don't have enough access to private schools.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
I RTFA and nowhere did it state anything about creationism; it only said, and with good reason, that the material was a *theory* and not a *fact*.. which is correct. If we don't take creationism as a fact anymore, why should be expected to take evolution as one, irrespective of how many people believe in it (and exactly the same used to be said of creationism as well).
Likely the particular judge just had a bug up his arse about religion, and came down heavy on it because he, like many zealots, don't like their beliefs to be challenged, irrespective of whether they're religious or not.
If I were in charge of that school, and had decided not to go through appeals, I'd first send the judge personally a bill for the removal of all the stickers from the books. I mean, if he wants them removed so much, he should damn well pay for it himself rather than expecting hard-worked teachers to spend hours of time doing it themselves.
As a student in a Cobb high school, I'm amused.
we just got back from our homogenized holiday break. So, we just started a new semester. The last of Cobb's highschools just switched over to 'block' schedules, meaning we just got four new classes for this semester...They juuust finished getting textbooks out today, looks like they've gotta take all these back. =)
Banaaaana!
Perhaps they should use words like "estimated to be" or "believed to be"?"
Most textbooks do. If you have a textbook that tries to assign a particular year to a geological or evolutionary event in the remote past for which we can only speculate with low granularity, that's simply a bad textbook.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Fundamentalism feeds from two sources. First what I mentioned: disregard for actual understanding and need for easy solutions. Second source is the need to belong. Watch a bunch of sports fans supporting their team. The group forms around the somewhat (ok completely) absurd idea that supporting same team or sport should somehow unite bunch of complete strangers.
Creationism is perfect "sport" in this aspect. It actually reduces the amount of information that is needed to comprehend where did we come from and also brings you into comfortable group of like minded thinkers. Additionally, belief in creationism has very little negative impact on your everyday life. Only in some circles do people think you are bit off your rocker, in others it actually is a proof of faith and considered a positive thing.
Because, I'm pretty sure if you ask a pretty serious Catholic or non-fundamentalist Protestant if they believe all life evolved from single cell organisms up to it's current state, they wouldn't agree. Something about God having a hand in things or the other....
I would say the statement that the majority of the world accepts that evolution takes place, things adapt over time, is true. But, I would say the majority of the world would not agree that the world, and all life on it, came about because of cosmic chance.
On the other hand, I doubt either of us know for sure.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Were the judges influenced by the Vatican City?!
Yeah, right. I've seen heaps of stuff evolve. I am of course, very very very very old.
Not everything lives and breeds on the same timescale as humans. Evolution has been observed in a variety of creatures - naturally mostly those with very short breeding cycles such as insects and bacteria.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
It seems like every post here is bashing the creation theory as if they are certain to it's non-existance.
Ok, I'm serious. No one has ever proved it without taking "God is a myth" as a base statement. So I challenge you. Prove it. Do a detailed, complete and honest search. Look diligently through all known information, look at every side. Prove it, completely.
You will be rich and famous if you suceed and a changed person if you fail.
No, it's not a free speech issue. The Government -- whether that be in the form of the Justice Department or the Board of a public school -- doesn't have the "free speech" right to dictate that students have stickers on their books. The Government imposing views on you is not free speech in any way, shape or form.
It's really simple:
Student puts a sticker on their book: exercise of freedom of speech/religion.
School Board puts sticker on every students' book: violation of freedom of speech/religion.
I know this gets confused in both ways (e.g. disallowing independent prayer), but it really is quite simple.
The enemies of Democracy are
Rand wrote about it.
She also said that homosexuality is "immoral" and "disgusting", so I'm not inclined to give a shit what she thinks.
Agree with above post: mumbo fucking jumbo. I'm a Taoist, but your post is just fucking retarded.
Yes. Yes VCR's did spontaneously arise out of the soup, in much the same way.
See, life created teeth. Teeth aren't alive, but were useful at some point to solve a problem. Life also acquired higher level thinking. Thinking produced recognition of tools. A VCR is a tool to solve a problem. It's not alive, but it has been useful at this point to solve a problem. It all starting in the soup.
That's the theory.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
Carbon-dating, empirical observation, archaeology, and genetics all indicate that evolution has taken place from more primitive forms of life to those seen today.
Remind me to bring you along next time I talk to my former co-worker Joe. He had great stuff regarding how inaccurate carbon-dating was. Not that he's right, but I'd like someone else to pummel him with logic this time.
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
Frogs.
Tired of free ipod spam sigs? Opt ou
Gravity is a Theory as well, and it explains certain evidence (things fall). And those creationist retards who think that something is a theory is less true, can just engage in some defenestration and prove to us all how The Theory Of Gravity Isn't True, because it's a THEORY.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will collect on your dead pool.
Fundie religious people make me ill. They really are the bottom of the barrel of humanity- right there with militarists, rapists, and the TSA.
Oddly, enough, I have a "spiritual" side to me, but it's smart enough to know that Science answers the question HOW, while Religion and Art answer the question WHY. And it is high time people made the distinction.
But then, an indication of how completely lost the USA is, is to simply look at who's president - and I immediately experience diminished trust or hope that such a real enlightenment is possible with the present and dominant demographic and the dullwitted political inclinations it exhibits.
This is NOT a Troll, or Flamebait - it's simple facts. Ooops. I'm sorry - Theory.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
What a ridiculous comment. People aren't in disagreement over laws of physics, they are in disagreement over evolution. Duh.
Tell that to the Flat Earth Society. They're pretty certain our "laws of physics" which are taught as fact are "just a theory" and probably shouldn't be taught in schools.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
"Expirical observation," etc. show nothing of the sort. Our genes are messy and inefficient, with many areas being simply rubble from the process of transposition and adjustment that produced our current genome. Archaeologists have unearthed skeletons of animals whose similarities are strong evidence for evolutionary progression.
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Atheism may not be a religion, but it is a faith. The only way that it could be otherwise is if you can prove that gods, spirits, demons, and all the other occult mechanics of religion categorically do not exist.
We both know that such proof is impossible, so we are left with the conclusion that the only truly rational position is agnosticism.
Don't get me wrong... I'm an atheist. But I freely acknowledge that my belief that there are no gods, ghosts and afterlife is an act of faith, not logic.
You are all wrong. The one true god is a small stone I found in my back yard. It's name is not prouncible in your measily human language, but it sends it's regards.
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
Our understand of how evolution has occurred in the past is indeed a theory (a theory being a well-tested predicative model). But that evolution occurs is at least as much as a fact as your existence.
English is easier said than done.
"The World" generally means "The part of the US I live in".
Bashing religious people, especially Christians, is easy.
Yup, all you need is a good club. Especially real christians: they turn the other cheek.
You can't take the sky from me...
I don't know why I'm feeding the trolls, but it's late and I'm tired, so I'll bite.
Can I ask what your evidence for God is? I assume you're talking about a single entity that is responsible for the Bible and creating the universe.
Just citing the existence of the universe doesn't count as evidence, wondrous as it might be, because that doesn't necessarily tie in to the Biblical representations of God. It may be, and it may not be. If you have any evidence supporting the contention I'd love to see it; I'm not aware of any myself.
What part of the midwest are you from? In Indiana and Ohio it is the conservatives that want vouchers for their schools.
It's one of the few economic related issues you'll see liberarians and liberals agreeing on.
Also, why would a conservative want the federal government getting involved in education? That seems to be about as anti-federalist you can get.
What?
In the end, these people in Alabama are really only shooting themselves in the foot.
They are so stupid in forcing this evolution disclaimer that any reasonable person would be scared to move to that state. In the end, anybody who wants a real education in science will have to move to a liberal state that can separate the creationist THEORY from the evolutionary FACT.
If fact, the next generation of evolution theories could be refered to as Evolution++, Evolution#, or Objective Evolution. Heck if things really change, we might even see Evolution Java.
They don't need to do that when the ACLU already sues school districts for mentioning "God" outside of comparative religion classes (and how many high schools have a comparative religion class?). But, I agree that by doing so, they are motivated by more than a sense of fairly stating facts.
Make no mistake about it; there is a cultural war, and the ACLU, the scientific community and the debate over evolution is being used in an attempt to exterminate Christianity in public life.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
Bashing religious people, especially Christians, is easy. What's difficult is treating people with respect who will never understand why you believe the way you do because they are afraid of your beliefs.
You could also say this:
Bashing non-religous people, especially non-Christians, is easy. What's difficult is treating people with respect who will never understand why you believe the way you do becayse they are afraid of your beliefs.
I've had many Christians snap at me because I don't believe the same way they do. You need to take a second and think about what you're saying. Either side is treated badly by certain people of the other side. Trying to lay a blanket statement that one is treated worse than the other is not only unfair, but very incorrect.
now tell me, what did the majority of parents want for their kids education?
Ignorance?
Ok, I'm serious. No one has ever proved it without taking "God is a myth" as a base statement.
You might be serious, but you're not coherent.
You can't take the sky from me...
Want to make that deal? Schools teach about God and we'll put stickers on The Bible and other books in that class for you?
I take it then that you're all for altering the pledge of allegiance to:
"...One nation unde God, which is a mythical entity, not a fact, indivisible..."
These arguments are all so silly.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
you let these same troglodytes vote in elections too. If they are really that dumb, how come their vote counts just as much as yours in an election?
and its about fucking time.
... hi bingo
As a former Catholic, I feel compelled to point out (for clarification purposes only) that the Catholic Church is not opposed to the theory of Evolution. It does question some of the "ape-to-human" points in the theory, but, from what I have read, that appears more to be from a lack of evidence than from some overall dogmatic opposition to humans evolving from apes -- check these out link and link.
Both links are very long articles that go into significant detail, but from the summaries I read, I interpret them to mean the Catholic Church is concerned where the human "soul" came from. They are not caught up in a creationistic point of view and they appear to be quite accepting in many of the finer points in evolution.
And, to go a step further, the Catholic Church, unlike some of the Evangalicals, does NOT believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.
Read this for information on carbon-dating.
God set up the isotopes in their particular states when he created the earth. Didn't you know that?
No, seriously, as I scientist I recognize that this is a possibility.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
What kills me is that these people think all scientists and doctors working on new technologies are simply mislead and need to find their way to perform work to glorify their creator. This has always been the case, as churches in the past have been against things such as a heliocentric solar system, vaccination, organ donation, psychology, world exploration, ending slavery, etc. That is, they were against it until they were losing membership to accepted practice. These people will tell you that modern physics is a bunch of hooey and then use their cell phone to call the hospital to arrange their MRI. They think doctors are inferior to the laying-on of hands, but rush to get flu shots and cancer treatments.
But hey, if intelligent design is going to be brought up, I think we should examine which idea is more intelligent...
There are just too many stories. No one provides more evidence than any other that one is better evident than any other.
Click here or here.
But if he could have been reached for comment, how would anyone else know it was really him?
Man, has this been a flamebait (read 'useless') article/thread.
the mathematical definition of an infinite series is one which is defined for any arbitrarily large, finite number of terms. proofs of limits, continuity, etc all work the same way - by induction on a unbounded sequence of increasing finite representations.
:)
so, you are correct in that for any finite number of terms there will be a -1 at the end of the series and therefore 1 = 0 does not follow.
however the original post is not a proof by contradiction because its really not a mathematically sound construction at all. it is, however, amusing.
Actually, I have to disagree. Only a small percentage of Americans (13%) accept the standard theory of evolution. The majority believe in creationism and the rest some sort of guided evolution. Fortunately, two thirds of Americans want evolution taught in school.
o n/ polls/main657083.shtml
b li.htm
An older poll from 1991 indicates that the percentage of people believing in creationism is on the rise. The same goes for those accepting naturalistic evolution.
I didn't find any numbers for the rest of the world.
The link goes to an article about a Nov 2004 CBS poll that explains in more detail, and I've included the poll results below.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opini
VIEWS ON EVOLUTION/CREATIONISM
God created humans in present form
All Americans
55%
Kerry voters
47%
Bush voters
67%
Humans evolved, God guided the process
All Americans
27%
Kerry voters
28%
Bush voters
22%
Humans evolved, God did not guide process
All Americans
13%
Kerry voters
21%
Bush voters
6%
Another interesting article.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_pu
Nice Marmot
Yes, evolution is a theory. Gravity is a theory. The big bang is a theory. Intelligent design isn't a theory; it's a story. There's a difference.
Who modded this "flamebait"? SnapShot's absolutely correct!
Note that in science "theory" is a technical term with a specific meaning distinct from its everyday use. In fact "theory" is the most solid status any body of scientific knowledge can ever attain - much stronger than "law", for instance. And ID doesn't come anywhere near qualifying.
Be faithful to your obsessions. Identify them and be faithful to them, let them guide you like a sleepwalker. JG Ballard
I am a Christian, I believe in both Creationism and Evolution. I believe that Genesis is poetic and not supposed to be taken literally.
Religion discusses who created the world and why, where science explains how and when it happened. I don't believe that the big-bang, evolution or other popular scientific theories rule out any of that, and I'm a scientist.
A lot of Christians I know do not rule out these scientific theories either. I fail to see how this sticker is 'creationist'. The theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun is not a 'fact' either, since we have no way of proving that the Earth isn't the central pivot point of the entire universe.
In hundreds of years time evolution may be dismissed for a more accurate model.
Thinking that you can be more right than someone else is a philosophical misconception.
I myself am a spiritual atheist so I hang out with a lot of religuous people-- people from many different religions. None of them are creationists. Some of the are pretty strict Christians (scares me actually) but they are still not creationists.
Creationism is not a central tenet of Christianity, and hell, even a bishop who was guest speaking warned against robbing the Bible of it's value by taking it literally. To quote Gallileio (a seriously devoted Catholic):
"The Bible tells us how to go to the heavens, not how the heavens go."
Frankly, creationism needs to go the way of phlogiston
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
As a scientist, I do too. But everything's possible; the goal of science is to determine what, given the evidence we have, has the greatest likelihood of being true.
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
I guess I won't get to use all these stickers I made up anymore.
o ok disclaimers/
http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textb
Nice Marmot
Don't forget the Mormons.
(I live in Utah.)
Quess what? They do, it's right in the text. In fact proving and disproving theories is how they teach physics.
Did you ever study physics?
-Ariel
What truth? That because we didn't use antibiotics wisely, we now have strains of infectious pathogens that are all but immune to most/all of these drugs?
I suppose they didn't involve, rather God stepped in and created new superior bacteria as a punishment for heathen textbooks.
I have yet to see any evidence of intelligent design. And I'm a software engineer!
ok, I'll buy that for $1.00
...but this kind of crap embarrasses me. There are a lot of small things that are wrong with the US, but this goes a little over the line and pops up as an indication of how far things have gone. I know a lot of people who moved to Atlanta and work at tech companies down there, and are raising their children there. I couldn't imagine having a child and sending him or her to a school controlled by the same kind of fanatics that run madrasas in third world countries. I read in Mississippi, 10% of students receive corporal punishment at least once a year. This is about as far removed from the kind of Deweyist, scientific education I'd want my children to have if I ever have children. I have a little bit of an in at getting an IT job in the EU (I can get dual citizenship and work in the EU if I want). If I could get all my ducks in a row I'd leave the US in a heartbeat. The US has been on a downward spiral since the late 1960's/early 1970's, especially in relative economic terms. Looking 20-30 years out, I don't think it's going to be the kind of place a white collar family would want to be (or a blue collar one for that matter, but they're stuck here). The best global students are switching from US to European universities, third world countries are switching from the dollar to the euro, and I have a feeling Europe is where a lot of the coming biotech boom will be as well. Hopefully I can accomplish the big move in the next few years.
Yes you are correct! And I think the parent was being a smartass by pitting those who are ignorant of the denotative concept of a "myth" vs those who are only familier with the connotative term. On the flip side I think people should be more educated about things before they get pissed off over something which turns out to be as trivial as semantics.
I am a Christian but yes I agree and understand that all of the Hebrew Bible is mythological, same as Gilgamesh, Oddesy/Illiad, etc etc... Does that mean it's all true and factual? Dunno... "Fact" and "truth" before the 1400's were not thought of as a logical, rational, objective idea that they are in the 21st century. Back then there was moral truth, spiritual truth, factual truth, etc however I am not a humanities major.
I took a humanities course once in Hebrew/LateRoman/Medieval humanities and I learned more about my own faith and beliefs in that secular college course than I did in years and years of Sunday school.
Libertas in infinitum
Just drink a glass of "special" kool-aid, and you'll see. Seriously, though. God ~isn't~ provable because no one can agree on what "God" is. To the Evolutionist, God is Time, since by this theory, enough time can seemingly create anything. It's also worth mentioning that Nothingness has never been proven to exist, either. So this whole argument over origins (what came from Nothing?) might be a moot point anyway. Even though we can prove the absence of particular something(s), we cannot prove the absence of anything and everything. And a final point: science is the study of the natural world; it has no concern of the supernatural. So unless the natural world/universe is self-regurgitating, not the product of a super-nature, then science will never be able to prove our origins. But does proof have only to do with science? Are there other forms of objective proof besides scientific proof? In the future, could there be "supernatural science"? Fun ideas. For now, best stick with what we have, and try to love each other. After all, God is Love.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
I believe that the official Roman Catholic view is that evolution took place as scientists believe. They add the claim that at the point at which humans became human, God infused them with souls. This isn't really inconsistent with biological theory since biology doesn't have anything to say about souls. Effectively, the official view is biology + infusion of the soul.
I agree that those Christians who believe in evolution would not agree that life evolved purely as a result of cosmic chance, but evolution in and of itself doesn't require that. A purely materialist scientist sees no need to appeal to anything other than chance, but one can hold a perfectly orthodox view of evolution and at the same time believe that a Supreme Being set the whole thing in motion.
When cornered, I call myself non-religious. But most are lost on such a subtlety, so I give them the bumper sticker version: atheist.
You're right: evolution is a theory, but creationism is not because it is not derived from the scientific method. And thus, as you say, evolution and any other scientific theory explaining the origin of life should be taught. Creationism (which is an explanation that cannot be disproved by scientific method, but is only accepted on faith) cannot be taught.
Amen! I have trouble breathing through my nose because of a nasal defect. It's just plain simpler for some people to breath through their mouth.
The Pope endorses biological evolutionary theory. There are many Roman Catholic priests working within the Roman Catholic Church to advance evolutionary theory. I attended a public high school of 3000 students--mostly Roman Catholic--and the Catholics had no trouble at all accepting evolution. On what do you base your claim that opposition to evolution in the Atlanta community comes from Roman Catholics? It could just as likely be that they are the ones advocating evolutionary theory!
I think that these stickers shouldent have even been put there in the first place.
It might open young minds to more than mainstream dogma.
First of all, evolution has been PROVEN to take place in some form or another, from bones and fossles
Actually, bones and fossils cannot prove evolutionary theory, and, in fact, the theory of common descent (which is the actual center of debate) is a deduction made after the fact. It cannot be proven in the true sense of the word, and there are alternative explanations possible.
and whick would you be more inclined to believe - A modern theory with -=*PROOF*=-
You obviously don't know what the word, "proof" means. You are confusing evidence with proof. They are not the same thing. It is tragic that our public school systems allow lazy thinking like yours to pass through the system without challenge.
or a child's story that dates back c. 2000 years ago?
You should explain what you have in mind, because no one is arguing for a 2000 year-old child's story. Saying such things makes you look like an ignorant bigot.
This is a subtle example of church INFLUENCING our government,
There is nothing wrong with churches influencing government. Of course, atheists want us to believe otherwise. That is part of the culture war.
and the stickers should have been made optional or "opt out"able.
The stickers state simple fact; evolution is a theory. It would be closed-minded and unscientific to state that no other theories could be made, or should be heard.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
Right before he sends you to hell to suffer for not believing that his son was real. Thanks God. What a guy.
What you have to ask yourself is why were the parents so upset? Why did they complain?
Play Command HQ online
So they can force people to say "One nation under God" but they can't put a sticker on a textbook?
That depends on what you mean by "evolution". There are certainly evolutionary theories that are simply theories. The mechanisms of evolution, its characteristics, the predictions that can be made for the future -- all theory. On the other hand, "change and differentiation of species over time" is not a theory, it's a fact that we've observed and even caused countless times.
This is similar to how General Relativity, or Newton's Theory of Gravity, are just theories. Yet gravity -- the attraction between masses -- is not a theory, it's a fact. The cause and nature of that attraction is what is theorized. Say Einstein's theory is just a theory, but don't tell me gravity is a theory when I can toss a ball into the air and watch it fall.
The problem with the "evolution is just a theory" sticker is that while, on its face, it may seem to be a simple statement of scientific fact (that theories are always theories and can only be disproven) with a much broader and stronger statement -- that speciation itself is just a theory, and that an alternative "theory" is that every species was created as-is six or ten or whatever thousand years ago in one day by God.
So when they say "evolution is just a theory", they're saying it because the existence of changes in species over time spans much longer than six thousand years contradicts their "theory". It's not enough that Punctuated Equilibrium be a falsifiable theory; the very idea that a species could over time develop into a different species must be false because a literal reading of Genesis implies it. The statement is based on religious dogma and is therefore a religious statement and therefore a violation of the First Ammendment.
Other than that political reality, you're absolutely correct.
The enemies of Democracy are
It only makes sense why the world is very much against Christianity. They're right, a lot of Christians are hypocrits. They go to church on Sunday and praise God and then they go to the Bar on Friday and drink and praise evil. They further get highly emotional about stuff they don't believe in the first place.
Jesus asked if people truely believed and followed him, why did they not do as he says. It seems to me that most "Christians" are modern day Pharisees. It's unfortunate too. No wonder the world does not believe.
The world tries to see Christ as reflected by those who mearly say they believe in Him. They see those modern day Pharisees and see a completly different picture of who Christ was. In fact, Jesus came to dispute those self rightous hypocrits. Jesus came for the humble, the sinners, us. Those self rightous people are not Christians, they just say they are for fire insurance. Do they not realize that the God they claim to believe in sees through their lies.
I believe Christ did come and die for my sins. I am not worthy of his grace. I wish I could be a good witness, but I am not for I am born with the evil that lies in all of us. It doesn't help that people have the wrong idea about this Jesus I worship. He's about as much of a hacker as we are. But just like hackers, people all have the wrong idea.
As a hacker, I see that the world is too complex to not have been designed. Look at a cell. It's about as close to nano technology as one can get. Sounds like God was into Object Oriented Programming rather than Evolution.
Can you site sources that prove that evolution is a fact?
Sure. Evolution just means that species change over time. Since this has been observed to happen, evolution is a fact. There are a few competing theories that attempt to explain how this change happens, but no one disputes that it does.
I wonder why they need a sticker in the first place to decree that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It's not like it's taught as the law of evolution or something similar. Imagine if they applied this concept to math books. They'd have to bind the books with lots of extra blank pages just to hold all the stickers to reiterate that each theory is just a theory and not a fact.
I think you do have a point, but the implication is still there. I don't like the ACLU's handling on several issues, or how they twist words, but their opponents twist words too.
Consider the political motivations of the people that placed the stickers there. The people that place that sticker there are trying desperately hard to push creationism as science and as a valid theory. I don't believe it is, as none of their claims I've seen present viable facts that back up those claims, thus it is not elevated to the scientific definition of theory. Another sticking issue for me is that the creationists I've met not only tend to focus solely on picking apart evolution and and modern cosmology, they use flawed reasoning, incorrect facts, and don't present a sufficient argument that creationism explains all the facts better. Where a typical scientist should be willing to hone and refine knowledge so that it fits with reality, creationists tend to try to sledgehammer the square peg of their knowledge to the round hole of reality.
Which is why I'm agnostic. I also think a complex system where life arises from chaos without aid is more fitting of an all-powerful being than just, like, building fish. But that's just me.
it's "thank goodness I live in Canada ... where there aren't so many people so rabidly fundamental that they try anything, everything, even silly things like stickers to try to make children ignore evidence!"
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
Evolution is, indeed, a theory.
It happens to be widely supported, but it is still a theory rather than a fact.
It seems bizarre that the judge would consider the sticker an endorsement of religion, when a proper understanding of science is all it takes to know that Evolution is a theory. Geesh!
This is just trading one dogma for another dogma.
The sticker was factual but was "damned" by those in power because it is against their dogma.
The Catholic church can tell you how that turns out.
There was a poll on the MSNBC website: ;)
Do you agree that officially mandated textbook stickers labeling evolution as "a theory, not a fact" are unconstitutional?
*45% - Yes, it violates separation of church and state.
*11% - The stickers are a terrible idea, but they're not unconstitutional.
*42% - The board was right to put the stickers in, and the judge was wrong to take them out.
3% - None of the above.
For what it's worth, it seems like the reading audience is fairly divided. Or someone had fun with a script and their cookies...
Some people believe Newton's physics theories still explain the physics in the universe (rather than Einstein's). Some people believe everything they read in science textbooks rather than questioning things...
This sig donated to Pater. Long live
She also said that homosexuality is "immoral" and "disgusting",
You see, that's what's wrong with pinheads like you. Just because somebody is wrong about one thing you think they must be wrong about everything else. It has probably never occurred to you that many geniuses become so because they are deficient in other areas, and Rand was certainly in that category. But her illustration in the spirituality of the material and mundane was of value.
But two hairy guys playing with each others asses IS disgusting. So there.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
The monkeys are supposed to have evolved, too. The common ancestor of apes and humans was neither ape nor human. An alternative question you might ask would be, "If evolution is an exact science, why are evolutionists still making major changes to the human evolutionary tree?"
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
And if so, what did it smell like?
True enough. I have a lack of knowing of if I have a religion or not, and I'm agnostic.
I think that's more because we don't use the phrase "Philosopher's Stone" in American English than any ideological bent
All's true that is mistrusted
The really sad thing is that religion and science are NOT antitheses of one another. Millions of Americans, and billions around the world, are able to reconcile the theories of evolution with the respective faiths.
Interestingly, the Islamic fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, Jewish fundamentalists, etc., etc. can all agree on this one thing. That and that everyone else is wrong too.
Ridiculously large numbers of people polled say that "The theory of evolution doesn't explain everything." as if that somehow discredits the entire theory. In order for a theory to be widely accepted, it only has to be the best holistic explanation for phenomenon. So while it might be altered or improved upon in the future, it should be done by legitimate scientists, not crackpot jokers with ties to the Flat Earth Society.
The problem with the sticker is that evolution is both a theory and a fact. When Newton's theory of gravity was replaced with Einstein's theory of gravity, apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air during the process. Gravity is a fact and a theory. The theory describes how gravity works and the fact is that it exists. Anyone who thinks a sticker that says "Gravity is a theory not a fact" is a good idea should go jump off the nearest building and do us all a favor. The belief "evolution is a theory not a fact" is the belief of an idiot. School is not the place to endorse idiotic beliefs. Church is.
That series diverges, it doesn't converge to zero.
Then let loose the dogs of war! We will fight to the last man.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
Cheers. Kill a braincell for me, will you?
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
Well, to begin with I was talking about the world as a whole. Even if only a minority of Americans believe in evolution, Americans only make up 4.6% of the world's population. And indeed the same site that parent cites makes the point that:
As to the US, yes, it is true that only a small minority accept a purely materialist view of evolution. However, evolutionists of some sort outnumber evolutionists, 49% to 44%. The question is what to make of the "theistic evolution" category. I would still include these people in the evolutionary camp. Without more detailed data one can't be sure, but this category presumably includes the official Roman Catholic view, on which evolution proceeded in essentially the way that materialist biologists believe it did, but God infused humans with souls at the point at which human beings evolved. So, although creationism is pretty common in the United States, belief in something like biblical creation is less common than belief in evolution.
Didn't realize this was such an inflammitory remark, but all right. There is evidence of minor evolution, yes. There is no evidence that evolution is responsible for the life we see around us. There is also no evidence for creationism, but it is foolhardy to declare evolution the truth and tell students that everything else is wrong. The sticker said nothing of creation at all but told students to keep an open mind!! That's not bad advice and maybe you two guys could take it as well :)
Kleedrac
Sure we wang, can.
I must disagree with the parent's statement that religion and science are the antithesis of each other. I do wholeheartedly agree that religion and science are not the same, however, I do not believe that they are opposites, or must be opposed to each other. If they were, I'd have a major problem, because I am both a professional scientist, and a devout Catholic.
...). This merely shows that there is nonideal religion and nonideal science.
In order to observe how science and religion are not opposed to each other, let me rename science and religion. I will call science the search for the truth about the universe. I will call religion the search for truth about creation, and worship of the Creator. (I admit that the way I phrased my definition of religion does not include all religions, as it should to be a proper defintition, but I don't know how to phrase it to be inclusive yet still specific.) I suspect that most people will agree that these definitions, while not perfect, are reasonable descriptions of what science and religion should be. Looking at these definitions, we see that science is compatible with religion. The universe is part of creation, and hence science is one part of the quest for Truth. (It can, perhaps, be argued that science can exist independant of religion, from the above definitions, but clearly they need not be opposed to each other.)
Some may be inclined to counter this argument by expanding upon the parent's claim that "Religion demands adherence without proof," perhaps by providing examples. However, that still is not the true opposite of the statement that "Science demands adherence only with proof." For religion to be the true antithesis of the parent's definition of science, religion would demand adherence only with DISproof. You may be able to find religions that have tenets of their faith that have been disproved. I can also provide you evidence of improper science (cold fusion,
Ideally, science and religion are not only compatible, but are both aspects of the search for Truth. While faith is an important part of religion, reason should be as well. Scientific inquiries will have a slightly different focus than religious inquiries, and should not accept certain sources (such as the bible or sacred Tradition) as proof. That is not a problem, as science is not religion. Nor, since religion is not science should it matter if religion has different standards for acceptance of a fact. As long as religion does not hold beliefs directly contrary to scientifically proven fact, the two remain compatible. For this reason, I can state, without compromising my integrity as a scientist or a Catholic, that I believe that God created evolution and man.
Yes, it is. The common formula is to proclaim that evolution is both a theory and a fact. Even without that formula, evolutionists commonly reject alternate theories of biological origins, even though no one has ever been able to explain or demonstrate how natural processes could have produced our modern biosphere without external design.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
I think the parent poster meant that you need to enumerate all the candidate re-actions throughout the universe to show that they are not equal and opposite to ehat one action you claim to have found. If you want to be strict about it, you cannot assume symmetry, continuity, etc. throughout the universe as shortcuts unless you have first proven that... going back to your next point.
To definitely prove a statement containing the universal qualifier is, on the other hand, pretty much logically impossible. Empirical knowledge is necessarily based on inductive reasoning, which can't be used to definitively prove anything the way you can prove things in formal logic or mathematics (even math proofs using the Axiom of Induction are deductive proofs; the name is misleading.)
You obviously don't know what the word, "proof" means. You are confusing evidence with proof. They are not the same thing. It is tragic that our public school systems allow lazy thinking like yours to pass through the system without challenge.
The ironic thing is that these stickers might have actually encouraged some of these kids to be less lazy in their thinking. To bad they didn't have them when "fossle" guy was in school.
<sigh>
Sorry ... I also meant to add that the truth that was being made unconstitutional was that evolution is still a theory ... last time I checked it still is a theory :)
Kleedrac
Sure we wang, can.
if the bibles in Cobb county have stickers advising people to consider other belief systems?
You don't see the problem in that? You don't see "The theory of gravity is a theory, not a fact" on physics textbooks, do you? Should there be a warning label on my number theory textbook? Why are people so worried if terrorists get a nuclear weapon- atomic theory is just a theory, right?
The labels are wrong because they abuse the word theory. Most non-scientists use the word theory to imply something that hasn't been proven. The word theory as it is used in the scientific community is actually very neutral as to the amount of supporting evidence. Think theory = explaination.
This label misleads people into thinking that there isn't a great deal of scientific evidence that supports evolution, which there is. There is so much in support, and so little against it that saying that evolution is not a fact, without qualification, is out and out deceitful.
Saying that it is possible that evolution is not correct, is a true statement, and if the sticker had said that it would have been at least factually correct, but it didn't. The way it was written was just shameful.
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." DID ANYONE ELSE SEE THE PART WHERE IT SAYS "REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF LIVING THINGS."? Anyone who says that the putative 'first cell' arose by random chance in the 'primordial soup,' and that we know this through observation, or good scientific inquiry, is probably the biggest idiot to ever grace these forums. Failed Stanley-Urey experiments anyone? Does anyone realize that fundamentally the statement "we arose by blind natural causes" is NOT scientific but religious in form? I wouldn't want my kids being taught a philosophical or religious position, especially when the science behind it is complete junk.
... could such an issue arise. I'm sympathetic, my left-wing intellectual American friends, but the world is laughing at you just a little bit harder.
I completely agree that this is a culture war. And in this case, I quite strongly side with the ACLU. What business does God have in any other class than a religious class? Do you not believe in the seperation of church and state? Parents can give their children all the religious education they want, or even send them to an outright religious school. But what is taught in public schools needs to be as bias-free as possible, no matter how widely accepted or (in the eyes of very many) very important those religious teachings may indeed be.
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
The theory of common descent has not been observed, at least by humans, as that would have required (at the least) humans to pre-exist themselves. That species change over time is not contested by most Creationists. It is, rather, the theory that our modern biosphere is the result of natural processes differentiating a common ancestor.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
I think you're missing the GP's point. He is saying that given:
A) Organisms are expressions of their genes.
B) Genes are inherited.
and C) Genes mutate.
That it must logically follow D) Evolution work. In order to claim "evolution doesn't work", then either A, B, or C must be false.
Let me give you a simpler, abstract example:
X) All 'foos' are also 'bars'.
Y) I am a 'foo'.
It logically follows then that:
Z) I am also a 'bar'.
If you want to dispute that I am a 'bar', then you must disagree either with X (me being a 'foo'), or with Y (all 'foos' being 'bars'). But if you accept both X and Y, the Z has to be true.
That said, the GP's logic was missing a step:
L) Organisms follow their genes.
M) Genes are inherited.
N) Genes mutate.
O) Beneficial mutations increase survival.
Therefore,
P) Some organisms who inherited beneficial mutations will out-survive other organisms who didn't.
That is called evolution. If you disagree with it, then either L, M, N, or O must be false.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Wanna get technical? They're BOTH theories. One is based purely on faith and one book that says it's the way to go. The other has a little more scientific basis to go on, such as the Galapogos Islands.
Personally, I think Creationism is a bunch of crap...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
The scientific method, on the other hand, presupposes a different cardinal axiom: fallibility, the assumption that there are things that you do not know. Not necessarily that they are unknowable, but that you do not know them. This is why, thus far, there have been no scientific arguments for the credibility of the theist axiom: most such attempts rely on the implication "I do not know X ==> not X holds," which is not sound reasoning if you assume there are things which you do not know (this is sometimes termed a false dichotomy).
An earlier poster essentially said that they don't know how the Grand Canyon could have formed such steep walls over the course of millions of years, hence it must instead have been formed much more quickly. But no evidence was presented that these are the only possibilities. Moreover, in the strictest sense, there is no evidence for the veracity of history -- maybe we just suddenly appeared with fabricated (but mostly consistent) memories and all? Thus perhaps instead we should look at the motives for making a particular claim. The Grand Canyon poster made his claim in order to assert a particular worldview which affirms his theist axiom. I choose not to accept this claim not because I think it is false, but because I see no benefit in accepting it nor penalty in rejecting it, but a potential for the opposite if later evidence contradicts the claim. Science isn't about finding objective truth, as, assuming our own fallibility, that is too grand a claim. Science is about making useful explanations -- useful in that they allow us to make predictions which are consistent with further observations. Religious explanations are useful, too, but for a different reason -- they make people feel good. Are the correct? I don't know. The most I could judge is whether they are consistent with my perception of my experiences.
Does that mean for something to have an avenue of comprehension within this so-called
"scientific frame-work" you mention, there must also exist an avenue of disproving
its correctness?
Arash Partow's Philosophy: Be a person who knows what they don't know, and not a person who doesn't know.
I can't prove there's an Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy, that doesn't mean they exist.
Debating such things just seems to be so depressing and unresolvable. Do something constructive would ya people? In the end no one has the answers, so just accept it. Live life and enjoy it, it's pretty short you know? Make the best of what you've got.
What's the worst thing that could happen? I guess you could end up in hell and have regrets for eternity, or you might come back as a fly spending your day chillin' out on a piece of horse poo
Good times! =/
I will say up front that I beleive God created everything. That said I do not believe that evolution excludes creation. The problem with all the fuss between creationists and evolutionist is that it is the work of the Devil: It pits perfectly good Christians against each other in a dispute with no end. And even in the painfully secular Slashdot the controversy continues.
Most laws started out as a theory. Newton's laws were theories and someday Einstein's theories will be law..
This was for practice. Then he made School Boards." --Mark Twain
Then I want a sticker in all bibles: "God is a myth, not a fact", and that statement is also completely true.
The sticker is not in all science books, just the ones that are required to be used at a public school in a particular area. And it's not saying anything is completely true or false. The parents would just like their beliefs to be respected. That seems very reasonable.
no one could have complained if it said 'both creation and evolution are possible answers to the unanswered question of our existance'. but it was bias, so the other extreme whined.
you can't have everything, where would you put it?
It is impossible to understand our system of laws and human rights without understanding our Judeo-Christian foundation.
Do you not believe in the seperation of church and state?
I believe the only seperation the Founding Fathers intended was freedom of individuals to express their religious beliefs, not the extermination of religious beliefs from the public domain.
Parents can give their children all the religious education they want, or even send them to an outright religious school. But what is taught in public schools needs to be as bias-free as possible, no matter how widely accepted or (in the eyes of very many) very important those religious teachings may indeed be.
That would be an argument for the elimination of the public school system.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
They ought to have a sticker saying "electromagnetism is a theory not a fact" too. Oh wait, then they might have to stop electrocuting prisoners.
Because it's a theory. It's called the 'Theory of Evolution'. Redundantly emphasizing that fact serves to discredit it, and no matter how you slice it, the sticker was put into the book by those of a religious bent, with an agenda. That agenda is to discredit the Theory of Evolution, in order to minimize questions about the apparent discord between evolution and creationism.
Because the school is a state run institution, they have a mandate not to endorse any particular religious institution. This sticker was deemd to be such an endorsement (rightly so, in my opinion...but that's my opinion). Thus, it's unconstitutional.
Make no mistake about it; there is a cultural war, and the ACLU, the scientific community and the debate over evolution is being used in an attempt to exterminate Christianity in public life.
Don't be moronic. Yes, the ACLU has gone too far in enforcing separation of Church and State by hindering individual and consensual religious expression. No, the scientific community and the debate over evolution do not have anything whatsoever to do with exterminating Christianity. Sure, a lot of scientists are not Christian, but many are.
The only reason evolution and the scientific community can be considered enemies of Christianity is because certain subsets of Christianity insist on promoting a dogmatic view of the world that contradicts basic facts. It's a silly as calling Galileo an enemy of God, when really he was only an enemy of the Church because he contradicted their dogma and thus undermined their secular authority. In reality the Church was simply wrong, not to mention hubristic in assuming that earth was the center of the universe.
The enemies of Democracy are
what makes you think God should save innocent people from dying?
My biology teacher in high school told us that it was a fact.
Gosh, if the teachers aren't going to make it clear what separates scientific fact and theory, SOMEBODY has to...
Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
The stickers state simple fact; evolution is a theory. It would be closed-minded and unscientific to state that no other theories could be made, or should be heard.
While it is certainly true that evolution is a theory, introducing a topic with a statement pretty much saying "everything I'm going to present might be wrong" -- which I claim this is equivalent to -- is not a way to get students to think they are learning something important. This is like putting a sticker on a math book saying "1+1=2 is only true according to some beliefs. Proceed with caution."
Scopes "monkey" trial. Look it up here: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/f trials.htm
(I highly recommend this site- it even scales down to a palm quite nicely so you can tote it to show the folks in the bible belt if you happen to pass through)
Who spent the money to make these stickers? Who let some group with an agenda disrupt the public school forum? If there were stickers on every book preempting the information inside, how can kids be expected to absorb facts with an open mind? These are the people stunting their own children's potential to contribute great things to the world. Let them absorb! Teachers are there to offer explanations, inspire and challenge- the greatest job in the world. Text books are there to reflect where we have come as a culture and a race (the human one) and build a foundation for students to help explain and discover the world around them.
I really can't stand these people. Reminds me of the lunatic judge that commissioned an expensive sculpture of the 10 commandments and put it on the courthouse steps! I bet he was one of the kids in school with a sticker on his book! I mean, really!! The courthouse steps!!
... It's good to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
Why do you think that a religous person would assume that people who died in the tsunamis would have committed a sin?
http://www.perthonline.net
The reason evolution is taught (and taught almost as though it were accepted fact), while other theories (not ID, which does not qualify as a theory for reasons others have mentioned) are not, is that evolution is the prevailing paradigm in the field. That paradigm will be adhered to, and the horse of evolution flogged like you wouldn't believe, until such time as it is proven or it ceases to explain the evidence collected in the pursuit of its verification-- and likely for some time afterward, until a new paradigm that does accomodate that evidence is established. If neither proof nor disproof ever happens, and the body of evidence supporting evolution continues to grow, then it can only be said to be increasingly more likely that the theory is correct than that it is not.
That's a brief summary of Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which has been a pretty standard text for scientists for forty years. Grab a copy and read it, if you haven't-- it's a short, easy read, and gives you the broad view of how science works, and why. Why the hell I wasn't exposed to it until college, I don't know.
Gravity is accepted by probably about 99.9999999999% of the world. Evolution is accepted by a minority of the world.
Interesting point. It might interest you to realize that Christianity is not believed in by a majority of the world, either. I suppose we should put a warning label on churches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_world_religion
Christians are the largest single segment, but still represent a minority at about 30%.
--
$tar -xvf
No one knows how gravity works. Damn gravity.
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
Here is what we know to be true beyond the shadow of doubt... Evolution. Why? Simple.
If the world were to end today, and there were only 1000 men and 1000 women alive, and all their memory was erased, and all the books on the planet were burned including science and religous texts, then this is what would happen. In the far future, if man still survives, there will be new religions of various kinds having no relationship at all to any of the known religions of today. The believers of such religions will still have creation stories that they hold to be true, and that some sort of god, or gods exist. However there will also be those who rediscover science. And after a time those who are scientists will stumble back upon evolution. It may have a different name, but it will be the exact same concept, and then a "theory".
Evolution is true because it isn't something that needs to be believed to be true. Anyone actually looking, trying to discover the way things really work, will find evolution again and again. Evolution describes the mechanism for understanding how things come to be the way they are. Evolution is true because reality is governed by rules of logic and reason, not fantasy. You cannot believe things into being the way you want them to be. Otherwise the word "truth" would have no meaning. Something is "true" when your world view of the way things are "agrees" with the way things really are...in reality. There is a world external to your own consciousness that allows us to define whether some things are true, or not.
Obviously I'm beginning to ramble on. The point is that the world isn't flat, it's round. Put all the "The World is Flat" stickers on all the textbooks you want. It won't change a thing. Evolution will be discovered and rediscovered again and again in any environment that nurtures a scientific method.
In point of fact, gravity is a law (note definition 6). General Relativity and Special Relativity are theories (note definition 5). A crude explanation of the difference between a law and a theory, in scientific parlance, is: Laws describe what is happening, theories attempt to describe why. Those attempts, after the initial few tries, are generally very good. Even the ones I don't agree with are generally well thought out.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
When you regrouped the parenthesis, you did not account for even pairng, so there will always be a trailing -1 :
... -1 = 0
1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1)
1 - 1 = 0
nice try!
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
I'm a Taoist,
Oh, I am sorry about that. I should have been more understanding before I called you a pinhead.
Taoism has some good concepts. The Tao is one of them. It's pretty close to the mark. However, a major problem with Taoism is that it advocates its followers become pussies. I'm glad to see you aren't THAT much of a Taoist, but still...
They go on and on with stuff like 'the tree which bends survives but the tree that is firm will break' and bullshit like that. Sure, the tree that bends will not break and will not die, primarily because it was never strong and never thrived in the first place.
That's one of the things I liked about Rand. Her heroes were men, and not pussies. They did not bend, they were strong and tall.
So much religion is like that. Meekness and humbleness and 'bending' to other's will. Religions have destroyed the spirits of so many souls and have turned them away from their humanity and lead them around and cast them as sheep. What people like Rand and Nietzche did was to show the spirituality of man, without having to resort to hocus pocus and fairy tales.
Yes, Rand and Nietzche were wrong about many things. I'll never call myself an Objectivist or a 'follower' of Nietzche. But what they wrote was of value, and served as a palliative to all the destructive pap floting about in the name of religion.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Yes, evolution is a theory. But so is all of science. Should we put stickers on chem and physics textbooks too? It's well understood among people knowledgable about science that it is all theory. The fact that religious dumbasses who think they know absolute truth can't comprehend the idea that science doesn't claim to speak absolute truth doesn't surprise me at all.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Just looking at the theory as I understand it, I cannot figure out where all the half-apes have gone. Survival of the fittest is fine, but the fact is the half-fit and mostly fit also survive most of the time. There should exist animals that have some human qualities, but not all.
For example, why not a humanoid with our brain capacity, but with an apes feet? Why did every animal that got changed feet also get an enlarged brain? It would seem that evolution would lead to a wide spectrum of animals, much like the bluring of dog breeds. When breeding programs are not imposed on dogs by humans, instead of purebred dogs you get mutts (half-breeds). Why then does evolution lead to the survival of separate lines instead of more blurred speicies.
Really, the theory of evolution seems to lead to this. Does anyone know the current theory why it doesn't? Is it the "pockets of change" theory?
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Nevertheless, that should be the general statement made before teaching any branch of science. What you are suggesting is psychological manipulation to ignore that fact. This is like putting a sticker on a math book saying "1+1=2 is only true according to some beliefs. Proceed with caution."
No, in that you are wrong. Bertrand Russell spent several years and actually proved, in the real and rigorous sense of the word, that 1+1 = 2. Indeed, it may be that only logical statements (such as those expressed in mathematics) can be proved; almost nothing in the physical world can be.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
** I emphasis this, since courts traditionally analyze religous entanglement with schools very critically.
Anyone who says that the putative 'first cell' arose by random chance in the 'primordial soup,' and that we know this through observation, or good scientific inquiry, is probably the biggest idiot to ever grace these forums.
The only people that say this are Creationists who now zero about evolution: e.g, you.
Silly child.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
I'm a Buddhist and I only get bashed by Christians since I'm not oneof them. Everyone else is fine with me. Then again, Bush et al made religion = Christianity so I'm not religious.
The theory of common descent has not been observed, at least by humans, as that would have required (at the least) humans to pre-exist themselves.
Only as it applies to humans. We have observed speciation in other species. It happens, it is fact. Did it happen with humans? Well, that's just a theory, but the only objection to the idea that humans evolved similarly to other animals including those we have obsereved is dogmatic.
The enemies of Democracy are
or cause evolution to change slightly to fit the new data.
That's the scientific method at work. In light of new facts, a theory is either discarded or improved.
That said, the entropy argument against evolution is a new one to me. On the surface, it's neat. Any reference for a more in-depth study of it?
It would be well to point out another development on this front:
"NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 -- A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.
"At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England."
ABC News: Famous Atheist Now Believes in God
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
The difference between a theory and a law is that a law can be absolutely proven, a theory cannot.
A "law" is just an obsolete term for a theory that everybody believes. These days, science is progressing fast enough that scientists are hesitant to call anything a law. An ironic consequence of this is that many of the principles called "Laws" are now known to be wrong, or at least not entirely correct. For example, Newton's "Laws of motion" have been superseded by Einstein's equations of relativistic motion.
Wow! When I read this headline, I knew the liberal /. crowd would be creaming in their jeans over this one. But this is beyond my wildest dreams - it's geek ORGY time!
First of all, I think evolution is a fact - clearly, natural selection has been observed, beneficial mutation has been observed, the there's the fossil record where more primitive organisms are found in older strata - many posters here are arguing the fact vs. theory angle of this story. It doesn't matter, you're all missing the point.
You've been suckered. All of you gloaters.
Don't you KNOW how this plays in Anytown USA?
Liberal judges telling our kids what they can learn. Dictating that our communities can't be critical of secular humanist dogma. Silencing the will of the people. Good, hardworking, tax-paying people - all told to shut up and sit down.
They are the kind of people who will remember this on election day. They will remember who is trying to run their communities from the Bench.
SUCKERS. Republican margins just went up another 0.5%.
You should have let them have their little sticker - what did it hurt, really? Afraid a few kids might reject evolution in favor of some religious alternative? Guess what, they were going to do it anyway.
Instead you have given the Right ANOTHER rallying point.
And you wonder why you lose elections. SUCKERS.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
It is impossible to understand our system of laws and human rights without understanding our Judeo-Christian foundation.
No, it isn't. And regardless, no matter what the foundation of our laws may indeed be, that does not mean you should require that those foundations be taught outright. Foundations are just that - foundations. A pagan society could also determine similar laws, even though the foundations may seem very different. And keep in mind that there were advanced civilizations long before Christianity.
I believe the only seperation the Founding Fathers intended was freedom of individuals to express their religious beliefs, not the extermination of religious beliefs from the public domain.
And this is not a case of an individual being denied that freedom, now is it? This is a public institution which, in theory at least, should strive to be as bias-free as possible. No creed should be put before another. I reiterate - no one should be denied religious expression, and we should all fight and die to protect that right if necessary -- but that is NOT what is at issue here.
That would be an argument for the elimination of the public school system.
I think this point is only valid if you do not see the difference between a religous belief and a scientific one. I think that the only groups that would oppose scientific teaching are those that fear scientific teaching - because they have something to lose. The great thing about science is that it is open to anyone. If you do not like the theory of evolution - by all means, dispute it. But do so in a manner that does not require others to share you faith. If it does require someone to share your faith, I am still not convinced why that should be taught in public schools.
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
LOL, not only that, but without -any- criteria for what constitutes a theory, and how it differs from a myth (would creationism pass any such criteria?), you can have an effectively infinite number of potential theories to teach, and given the number of religious "theories" out there that explain the origin of life, that class would take many, many years.
a simple equation we can all enjoy:
(infinite number of potential theories) / (amount of time available in the class) = WHOOPS
I have a scenario.
Two men...
One believes in the natural adaptation process of all living organisms but also believes that God created all of this. He cannot understand why but the concept of time is proof enough for him (there is a beginning and end to everything, why not a beginning and end to this universe) He believes that when he passes away that he will be taken to be with his God in heaven.
The Second man believes that religion is stupid and irrational. He cannot understand it and science has not been able to fully explain it either (by the way there is evidence that God does exist http://www.godandscience.org)
The consequences for the two men's beliefs if the first man is right: the first guy goes to heaven for eternal bliss... the second man goes to visit Bill Gates for eternity. The consequences for the two men if the second guy is right: there corpses just rot away as usual.
Now just to be safe wouldn't you want to be the first man... you have nothing to loose right?
The sticker is part of an attack on evolution by anti-evolutionists now operating under the alias 'Intelligent Design.' Wired had a good article on this several months ago (I believe November, try here) Basically they've realized they cannot win the battle by pushing the bible and have switched to pushing 'theories' (Aliens, Omnipotent Beings, etc.) that are at best hypotheses. All in an effort to confuse the population into thinking there is a division in the scientific community.
As for the complexity of life and the chance of it occurring, perhaps you've heard the universe is a [i]really[/i] big place; if thats not enough quantum theory predicts that there are an infinite amount of slightly different ones! So while the chance of life existing is small, it's had a lot of chances. An easy example of a similar situation: if I'm holding a single card the chance of it being a specific card is low, if I'm holding most of the deck its probable to have a specific card.
Science is the process of elimination:
1) I have a theory
2) Poke holes in theory (Try to disprove, not prove anything)
3) Make the theory better -- fit the facts that distroyed my first theory, then repeat until hopefully we got it right!
Religion:
1) I believe something -- therfore it is!
2) See 1
I would say that is like comparing Apples to Oranges. Science is great because it is ever changing. Religion is great because it is comfortable and never changes (much). With that said, if you are going to teach evolution and creationism, which versions do you teach and how? Wouldn't it better to teach children to think instead of ideas?
I don't know what kind of science education YOU had, but i was taught in middle school the difference between a "hypothesis", a "theory", and a "law". In case you don't know, a hypothesis is basically an educated guess, a theory has been supported by repeated experimentation, and a law has, basically, been "proven". however, it was ALWAYS stressed that anything in science can be disproven, even laws. this is one of the most BASIC principles of science-nothing can be proven to be 100% true. this is very important, because, as we advance culturally and scientifically, things that were previously thought to be true can, in fact, be completely incorrect. this sticker is, in my opinion, a very good idea, even if it was made for different reasons that the ones i have put forth. the sticker doesn't say ANYTHING, ANYTHING AT ALL about creationism. as far as the message goes, the sticker could be supporting the extraterrestrial origin of life on earth. the point is, the sticker didn't support or strike down anything. it just stated a FACT-evolution is a theory, and theories can, and sometimes are, wrong. it doesn't matter if i believe in ID, Evolution, or any other religion. this is just basic science, that kid's should be taught. In my opinion, the one most important thing that kids should take out of high school is the knowledge that science is fallible, and scientists aren't always correct. if they don't know this, that just makes them even easier to manipulate, as they will accept anything told to them by a scientist as "the gospel truth", and that is never a good thing. a bit of skepticism never hurt anybody, and is often a very desirable quality.
VCRs haven't had billions of years to evolve...
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
It would probably not be unconstitutional if they also put "Christianity is a Religion, not a fact, about the universe..." stickers on the Bible, "Islam is a Religion" stickers on the Koran, etc. because then the law is treating everything the same. Let's see what they think about the first one there.
Though this still doesn't seem right, and certainly you could find countless other books that should require the sticker I didn't mention. So it's a pretty stupid idea all around.
I agree with the other poster that prohibiting mandating the stickers isn't really a free speech issue.
Do you realise that talking about the percentage of the general population that accepts a theory is completely irrelevant?
Once upon a time, a majority of people in some place probably believed that the world was a flat disc resting on the back of a giant turtle. That doesn't make the belief valid.
Not so long ago in Europe, the majority believed that the Sun and the rest of the universe revolved around the earth. Was the theory any more right because of the high percentage of (uninformed) believers among the general population?
The general concept of evolution is supported by 99.9999999999% of scientists.
sum.zero
There is a large difference. Gravity is accepted by probably about 99.9999999999% of the world. Evolution is accepted by a minority of the world.
Science is decided by scientists, not by a vote of the general population. Biologists who don't accept evolution are about as common as astronomers who don't accept gravity.
The real reason scientists resent such stickers is that it is an attempt to lie to students about our profession. The fact is that evolution is absolutely fundamental to biology. There is no meaningful scientific debate about whether life evolved, only about the details of the mechanism, comparable to the debates of physicists about the subtleties of quantum gravity.
You obviously haven't researched this that much.
There are classic examples like the structure of the eyeball and also replications of strata after volcanic eruptions.
To be fair, the word "creationist" involves so many possible meanings that it's almost impossible to answer your question.
My assumption is you are asking a serious question, not trolling. Regardless, your choice of words shows you aren't open to an alternative view. Your sentence "Evolutionists have scientifically proven data..." is ludicrous. How do you propose to scientifically prove events which are purported to have happened over millenia? Scientific proof requires replication. There is a huge difference between causation and correllation.
Macro evolution would require the negation of the second law (I think it's the second, don't remember right now) which holds that entropy increases. Just how would living creatures increase in complexity so as to take advantage of future enivronmental circumstances? Answer, they wouldn't. Porcupine quills serve as a protection against predators. Why then haven't mice or rats developed quills? They're also eaten by predators.
It's one thing to put together collections of physical specimens which show a morphing of physical characteristics and quite another to PROVE anticipatory change or genetic structure.
There's a whole body of written works which are chock full of examples to illustrate purposeful design. If you really want to find out, you have to go beyond pseudo-academic biological sources and get to core aspects of matter. I don't remember the name of the group right now but you should be able to find works from a group of physicists and astrophysicists which discuss such things as the unique aspect of the betn water molecule and its relationship to carbon-based life and also unique aspects of carbon.
Recently, Discovery Times channel had a re-broadcast of a show which discussed the Ten Plagues in Egypt and discussed how a small change in the enivronment could have led to all of them happening. I missed part of it but recall the basic premise was a remote volcano could have caused a bacterial explosion in the water which led to red bloom which chased frogs out of the water and there was also something about the practice of grain eaten only by the first-born sons being stored close enough to the river such that the bacteria could have contaminated it and the Hebrews didn't have access to that grain, etc.
That's certainly a far more plausible scenario, given that it would have God making a minor change in the ecological balance which would have led to a sequence of events. Granted, if you start with the premise that God exists and is omnipotent, he COULD turn water totally into blood but that would violate the physical laws in which He has placed us.
To return to your statement, no, there is NO scientific proof that evolution has happened. There is only an annecdotal collection of hypotheses with an attendant philosophical belief.
But it is a theory...a very good theory...but a theory none the less.
No Chuck, sorry. Not religious reasons, SCIENTIFIC ones. There are many SCIENTISTS who do not agree with the way evolution is taught or presented in textbooks. And no, I am not talking about OBSERVED instances of bacterial resistance to antibiotics etc...I am talking about HISTORICAL aspects such as the origin of life. Did you read the disclaimer Chuck? It speaks of the ORIGIN of life as not being fact. If you think it's fact, and is backed by sound scientific evidence, you are an idiot, or perhaps a pseudoscientist who likes to sensationalize bad science.
No, that is not the only reason. Another reason--the one that I spoke of in my post--is that people who hate Christianity are using evolution and the scientific community as tools in their attack against Christianity. It does not matter at all to these enemies of Christianity that the very sources they are using are Christian sources. What matters to them is that they can exclude or eliminate the reference of God from public discourse.
The legal system isn't intended to be anti-Christian, either, but the enemies of Christianity certainly try to force that use!
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
I'll be the one screaming "medic!" at the top of my lungs. Modern medicine may just be a theory but I reckon it's statistically a better bet than relying on His strength.
And you'd be absolutely right. In the current conflict in Iraq, the death rate from battle wounds is only 1.6%, whereas in vietnam it was 3.68%, more than twice as high. The army, at least, attributes this huge increase in survivability to modern medical technology and improved practice.
looked at as a ratio of wounded (but survived) to killed, the current ratio is 7.6:1. Going backwards in time, counting only U.S. soldiers:
Vietnam: 2.6:1
WWII: 1.7:1
WWI: 1.8:1
US Civil War: 0.74:1
In other words, a trend consistently shows more people surviving war wounds as time goes on.
Meanwhile, the evidence is not that there has been a massive (factor of twenty) increase in religiosity in the United States since the Civil war. Certainly, available data show that people self-identifying as Christian have decreased significantly between 1990 and 2004.
So the evidence would seem to indicate, unless God has consistently increased his tendency to save the lives of wounded soldiers despite no significant increase in their faith, that improvements in medical technology are in fact a good bet for saving your life when you're lying bleeding on the battlefield.
Good call, mike260.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
...but you should probably make those air travel reservations to Europe, because this country has always been, and will likely always will be, deeply religious. You can lament that all you want, but it's the truth. "Jesusland" isn't going away. If you want a "Deweyist" education for your children, I'd suggest France, with all of their hostility towards faith. No danger of those wackey Christians there. Of course, you've got hundreds of thousands of MUSLIM fanatics to deal with there...
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Oh, and a minority should decide what the majority wants their kids to learn in schools their taxes fund?
In a science class? Absolutely. Only a minority of people are scientists, and the job of a science class is to teach what that minority of specialists think. One could, I suppose, decide that children shouldn't learn science. But to teach something else and label it "science" is dishonest.
"No, in that you are wrong. Bertrand Russell spent several years and actually proved, in the real and rigorous sense of the word, that 1+1 = 2."
Only if you believe that two comes after one. There are underlying assumtions (axioms?) that any rational thought is predicated upon, be it mathematical or spiritual.
They will never stop until somebody makes the
Evolution is a theory, not a fact.
Creationism is a superstition, not a fact.
Someone hates these cans.
science cant really live up to its name. look at how many people here are still arguing over definitions of words? damn people, like someone said up above: '-1 free speech'
it shouldnt matter whats on a text book, nor whats in a text book. just let it be data.
learning to sift through the data is what we should be worried about. instead everything is a straight 'scientific' argument. this scares me, for i dont want my (future) kids thinking in black/white lines in this grey world.
a grey world where little particles can be in two! places at the same time.
No, it is people like you who do not understand the current controversy, and who do not know how to read. "and that we KNOW this through observation, or good scientific inquiry." I wonder if you have studied this at all. Do you have any idea of the difficulties surrounding such an event? Crying "time can produce anything!" is not scientific my friend.
I don't want my child being poisoned by religious fools. I came from a mixed catholic/protestant background and I can tell you that most people involved in any christian religion are fools. Fortunately, I was able to escape the clutches of those anti-intellectual religions and learn the truth about the world. I am not an aetheist either. I have my own personal set of beliefs and they have nothing to do with being religious.
If any religion in the world is "the answer", then why do they all put up barriers to learning truths from outside of that particular religion? Perhaps because they are all based on the idea that you need to keep members uninformed? Trust me... I remember weirdos in the protestant church I went to claiming that they could tell when people were posessed by demons just by looking at them. And this was NOT in the south! It's a good thing I finally shed my religious shackles and read up on buddhism, demonology and witchcraft, judaism, astrology, etc... Learning about things from "the other side" really helps you to discover what the truth really is. I found that most christians are deceitful hypocrites. Especially the ones who are more involved with the church.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Do you not believe in the seperation of church and state?
I believe in it very strongly, and in a perfect world it would not be a problem for all theories to be taught in school, including the theory that NASA uses earthquakes to overrun minor dictators. In that perfect classroom, the teacher would explain all available information, and then teach critical thinking - and let the student interpret the facts.
This perfect classroom is not the norm, however. In most classrooms (and for most students), what the teacher teaches is not to be questioned - it is just to be accepted. This leads to discussions like the one we are having here - where you are convinced that anyone that does not agree with you is wrong, and I am convinced that I am right.
In a democracy, we have decided that moral decisions should be made to favor the majority. The majority does not think that evolution has less "evidence" than deity. The reason you disagree is that you throw out their "spiritual evidence", because you believe it to be faulty. That is your right as a sentient being... however using the courts to overule the decisions of the majority is wrong. Most people believe differently than you do. You think you are right, and everyone else is wrong, fine. But then you try to enforce your superiority on others - that is the ultimate arrogance.
Of course, these comments are not directed to you as a person, more to the group (such as the ACLU) that seems to think the way you do.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Just because you don't understand the theory, doesn't mean it isn't true. A nice into to biology class as your local college will answer all of there questions quite well for you. You just have to give it a chance. The fossil records are incomplete, and people are finding new stuff every day. We've probably found only a small part of what is out there so far.
Don't confuse evolution with becoming more human-like. It's all about survivability. Cochroaches, for example, are in some ways much more evolved than us. They preceeded us by millions of years, and if a meteor smacked the planet tomorrow, they might outlive us by millions more.
Tired of free ipod spam sigs? Opt ou
What is truly sad is the way in which these people--who consider themselves religious--have focused on this very materialistic argument.
The argument itself betrays a misunderstanding of spirituality. It assumes that if we are seeking spiritual fulfillment, that we must all believe the same thing... that somehow if we believe the WRONG thing, that we will be unable to attain spiritual fulfillment.
It is a very flawed approach to understanding the world. If you want to seek happiness, oneness with God... whatever you want to call it. The origin of humanity should be the least of your concerns. And what other people believe about it should be even less of a concern.
We are humans. The point is to get used to it, and not to fret about how it happened or didn't happen. It is an interesting question, but not one that religion should be involved in.
"Theory" is not speculation. In science, you start with a speculation, which is used to frame an initial hypothesis. Once this hypothesis has passed numerous attempts at disproof, then scientists start treating it as though it were likely to be correct. Only then does it become a theory in the sense that scientists use the word. No amount of further confirmation will elevate the idea any higher than "theory".
"Empirical observations" are where scientific laws come in. A law describes an apparent systematic, repeatable observation. For example, "The Law of Gravity" says that masses consistently attract each other. A Theory of Gravity might try to explain the law as the action of gravitons, or depressions in the fabric of space-time.
You say "empirical observation" means "speculative assignment of causational relationship in the absence of direct observation", which I would attempt to refute if only the statement didn't leave me confused and doubtful of your rationality.
Trying to claim equivalence between creationism and evolution is silly. Evolution has millions of observations across billions of years, while Creationism has a dusty old book and a few tired arguments based on misconceptions of evolution. Men wrote the Bible, God wrote the rocks. You choose.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Well, if you take all the weird breeds of dog that we've deliberately created, and let them breed freely, in the wild, without our intervention, you end up with something like a coyote-ish mutt. Funny how all those look the same, too. Kinda like all the smart apes look the same.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
The evidence is in a field of study called apologetics. It is dominated by atheists who are now Christians. It is the logical study of God without an emotional or religious base. Some of the best works are "The Evidence That Demands a Verdict" and "More Than A Carpenter" by Josh McDowell, "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis, "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel, and "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" by Norman Geisler. McDowell was an Atheist who attempted to prove there was no God based on all available evidence. Lewis was also an Atheist. All 5 of these books` are available at Amazon.
The Board of Education, backed overwhelmingly by the parents of the children in the school system.
I know this is Slashdot, and that religious faith causes readers to foam at the mouth and go into convulsions, but you DO realize most of the country is deeply religious, don't you?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
In point of fact, gravity is a law (note definition 6) [webster.com]. General Relativity and Special Relativity are theories (note definition 5) [webster.com]. A crude explanation of the difference between a law and a theory, in scientific parlance, is: Laws describe what is happening, theories attempt to describe why. Those attempts, after the initial few tries, are generally very good. Even the ones I don't agree with are generally well thought out.
In science, a "law" is just a simply stated theory that is generally accepted. The term is pretty much obsolete. Science progresses fast enough these days that hardly anybody has the confidence to label a theory a law. But the term is sometimes still used for older theories. Ironically, many of these are now known to be not quite right. For example Newton's "Laws" of motion and gravity have been proved to be less accurate than Einstein's theories of relativity and gravitation.
Second, Evolution is both a scientific fact and theory. It is a fact in that we have observed fruit flies, bacteria, and to a much more limited extent, plants and animals evolve. There are documented cases of new species arising.[1] These are observed facts. Evolution is a scientific theory in that scientists use the fact of evolution and say that that is how all species came about, and eventually life itself.
Whether or not the evolutionary theory is correct or not is not even a scientific fact. All scientific facts are 'observed'. No one was around to observe the beginning of life, or the origin of all species. Hence, where and how they started are not, and will never be, scientific facts.
"What else is a fact but the best possible conclusion based on the evidence?"
Not a bad common english definition of fact. However, in science, this kind of 'fact' is called 'the best theory so far'. The scientific 'facts' are the evidence you talked about, not the conclusion.
[1]The one in particular that I remember is a plant that was a weird genetic screwup hybrid of two related species. The result has more chromasomes than it's parents, cannot polinate them or be polinated by them, and is successfully propogating on its own. Lab expieriments comfirmed that this new species was the result of crossbreeding.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
is that people are starting to look like the ones who prosecuted Galileo. They used the Bible as a SCIENTIFIC BOOK (which wasn't meant to be), distorting all science. Geocentrism anyone?
:)
Worse. These creationists want their version to be the truth so much, that they've dismissed carbon-14 testings, astronomy, quantum physics and everything that tells us the universe is older than 6 days, as lies, etc.
I remember a joke in a creationism book: "The answer book", it's a pink one (review and rebuttal).
Student: So, those 6 days could have been 6 microseconds?
Teacher: Yes.
Student: And 6 billion years?
Teacher: Yes.
Student: And 6 days?
Teacher (outraged) SIX DAYS NO!!!!
This ridiculization of science gets me scared at the whole creationism.
Now, on the other hand, I have something against Darwinian Evolution. I find it hard to believe that mere "random mutations" and a couple millions years have managed to create symbiosis and parasitosis. You know, an organism depending upon another (and possibly supporting it).
Take a look at the discovery channel. Is it really logical that random mutations will make a spider look EXACTLY like a species of ants, use EXACTLY the same pheromones to hunt them? Or how about this little worm which produces some kind of food that ants like? Or how about the orchid Mantis?
Symbiosis means SYNCHRONIZED evolution, and I don't think that random mutations can do that. Furthermore, HOW are these mutations produced?
I rather think that possible mutations are already hardwired into DNA, and there are some ways to trigger specific changes - genetic memory or something... since we don't even know what the rest of "garbage" DNA is, I believe that there are still many mysteries in genetics that we haven't even SUSPECTED.
Evolution? Yes. Darwinism? I doubt it. (And I do believe God designed DNA
(Note: As a plus, i'd like to point out Genesis 1:20-27. First God filled the waters with living beings, then birds, then the big sea monsters and all water beings, and then earth animals, reptiles, and wild animals. And lastly, man.
So, this kinda fits evolution, in that life came first from water, then evolved into sea creatures (sharks, fish), then dinosaurs, mammals, and finally mankind. Of course, this is just an interpretation, but I'd say it's quite accurate for a religious book. In any case, interpretation should follow Science, and not the opposite.
Amen, brother! (Seriously)
Unless your'e blinded by a literal interpretation of a frickin' BOOK based on heresay and lore, the only conclusion creationsist can come to is that the universe was created by god and not by natural processes. Well, what's the difference? I don't believ in any god, but I'm pretty sure if there was one, it'd give me the faculties to understand myself and my place in the universe through empirical evidence.
And why wouldn't a "god" intend us to evolve into something greater? No matter how you slice it, evolution happens. It's just a matter of how much you want to shut yourself off to logic and give yourslef to "belief."
Sad. I'm glad some people still believe in logic instead of fanatical belief.
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
Everything we need to know about this topic has been eloquently and concisely discussed in the song by artist MC Hawking (rap persona of physicist Stephen Hawking).
Fuck The Creationists
Trash Talk
Ah yeah, here we go again!
Damn! This is some funky shit that I be laying down on your ass.
This one goes out to all my homey's working in the field of evolutionary science.
Check it!
Verse 1
Fuck the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches,
every time I think of them my trigger finger itches.
They want to have their bullshit, taught in public class,
Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass.
Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve,
straight up fairy stories even children don't believe.
I'm not saying there's no god, that's not for me to say,
all I'm saying is the Earth was not made in a day.
Chorus
Fuck, fuck, fuck,
fuck the Creationists.
Trash Talk
Break it down.
Ah damn, this is a funky jam!
I'm about ready to kick this bitch back in.
Check it.
Verse 2
Fuck the damn creationists I say it with authority,
because kicking their punk asses be me paramount priority.
Them wack-ass bitches say, "evolution's just a theory",
they best step off, them brainless fools, I'll give them cause to fear me.
The cosmos is expanding every second, every day,
but their minds are shrinking as they close their eyes and pray.
They call their bullshit "science" like the word could give them cred,
if them bitches be scientists then cap me in the head.
Chorus
Trash Talk
Bass!
Bring that shit in!
Ah yeah, that's right, fuck them all motherfuckers.
Fucking punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years.
Fuck that!
If them superstitious motherfuckers want to have that kind of party,
I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes.
Fucking creationists.
Fuck them.
Check out the great MC Hawking tunes at his website.
As I said in a previous post, the problem is that what we can see of evolution (bacteria, etc.) always results in a more diverse population, not a less diverse one.
For example, dogs and cats are completely separate animals - there are no half cats. Why? Why are there thousands of breeds of dogs (which all survive), but everything that was half-cat, half-dog died during prior evolution?
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
While you cannot disprove the possibility, it's impossible to do science unless you assume that conjecture is false.
No point in even doing science, if there's a meddlesome, omnipotent creator who has demonstrated a perfect willingness to mess with your test tubes. You can never be sure that the results of a given experiment are the result of natural laws, if you leave open the possibility that God is breaking in and introducing systematic errors to get you to draw wrong conclusions.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
I agree, the scientific community should not be all painted black just because some who participate let their egos get in the way of science or let their own work become a cause of fashion.
...
Likewise religion.
Last time I checked, real religion required an active faith, active pursuit of truth, and the moral strength to not be swayed by every wind of fashion.
Show me your faith without works, and I'll
show you my faith with works.
(James)
And this is the true, pure religion, to
visit the widows and the fatherless.
(Paul? to the Hebrews?)
You shall know the truth and the truth shall
make you free.
(Jesus)
Repent!
(Jesus)
(Some people think repentance is just moaning and groaning about how bad we are, but if you study the scriptures, it's essentially step-wise refinement, or conscience-directed personal evolution. At very least, it's a willingness to quit doing what's wrong and start doing what's right.)
Any lacking wisdom should ask of God,
but should ask with real intent, otherwise will
be just like a boat with no rudder, blown about
by every fashion of doctrine.
(James, again)
(God, being by definition, the source of all truth, which some might forget.)
Paraphrases, but there should be enough there for the curious to find the references.
The argument is not religion vs. science, but religionists vs. sciencists. (Scientificists?)
People who do true religion and people who do true science and ignore fashions (and dabates about them) are the real heros, even if they push us to think more deeply into what seven days, or in the case of this debate, creation, actually means.
Atheists firmly believe that Dieties do not exist
You have bundled two distinct sets of atheists into a single group. The former being the strong atheist, i.e. one who believes that god does not exist. The later, of course, is defined as weak atheism. It is a lack of belief in God, but with the acknowledgement that a lack of evidence does not conclusively prove that God does not exist.
However, neither of these are "religion" by any sense of the word. Your above statement can and should be reworded: Strong atheists do not believe that God/Gods exist. Essentially, the two phrases are the same, but when viewed together reveal the underlying (and decidedly incorrect) premise; that belief or the lack thereof by itself is tantamount to religion.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Except that God doesn't even remotely meet the scientific definition of "theory", and so the sticker wouldn't be remotely correct, even if we did hand out Bibles in science classse.
I think you mean "hypothesis"; to become a scientific theory, a hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable and then successfully predict the results of a great number of careful experiments and/or observations. Examples of theories include gravity, the atomic structure of matter, and electromagnetic wave propagation, all of which have stood up to numerous tests and observations.
The existence of god has only a single book translated many times, and is not testable. Sorry - even to those who believe, god does not qualify as "theory" in the scientific sense.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
"On Dec. 26, God who controls the world slipped beneath the waves.
... God loves us, so by choice he gave us free will, otherwise we'd just be robots ... and that wouldn't be a loving thing to do would it? But free will has consequences, it's a result of the choice. Better to have loved though, than not love at all don't you think?
As a spiritual leader, I receive calls, letter and messages from people who have been touched deeply by the magnitude of the disaster. Even as we do what we can - giving generously to bring relief, keeping vigil with those still frantic to account for loved ones, trying to contemplate the rebuilding - we cannot escape this: We are dismantled inside.
We know how the englufment happened. There was a shaking of the foundations of the Earth and a rising of the waters of the sea. It did not take 40 days and 40 nights; it took littlemore than 40 minues to engulf worlds. That much is explicable, if not imaginable.
We do not know the why of it. No one is responsible. There is nowhere to lodge the meaning or lay the blame, except at the doorstep of God. Who else can shake the foundations of the world? At least the grief is deep, strong and true. Grief is best when only God carries the blame. It liberates the heart for clean anger.
And here is something I know about the broken-hearted. They are the blessed, for they have loved and been loved. They know that this world is no paradise, but somewhere along the way they have encountered the greatest of the gifts. If it were not so, they would expect little and grieve less. Great grief can only produce great love.
One young mother wrote to tell how she is haunted by the television images of parents holding their dead babies. Her words carry me to the deep into which all caring people have been cast. She is singing in the ancient lament of Jeremiah for the one who has lost her children: 'Her sun went down while it was yet day.' This has happened. The sun has gone down while it is yet day.
I cannot speak for God, although I have spent many years trying to listen for God. What I hear today is the sound of weeping. What I taste today is the salt of God's tears. What I remember is a day, we call it Good Friday, when God's sun went down while it was yet day. What I know today is that if there is a presence in all creation that is crying, that presence is God.
I have come to believe that God's ultimate commitment to the world and its creatures is not a commitment to control but a commitment to love. I believe that between control and love God must have had to make a choice. This is the same choice we all make. My own life as a parent of four has taught me this.
Perhaps Margaret Atwood was right to say that we see the world clearly when we see it through tears. Broken hearts are the best companions on a day when the sun goes down.
Now we must do what we can to help. When our common and frail humanity moves us to work side by side we may become aware in spite of ourselves that the One who loves the world is rising from the deep."
- Right Rev. Peter Short, Moderator of the United Church of Canada
Hrmmm
LOVE > *
You haven't answered my question, why did the apes survive and the humans survive, but the half way points did not?
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
LOL.
Evolution is not accepted by a minority in the world. evolution of man kind i shard to swallow by theists, but it's no less true.
And I must retort that science is not a democratic process. More votes doesn't make something more true.
At the time the holy scriptures of most major religions were made, the people who wrote them had the average education of a 6 year old today. That's not that they were dumb people at all-- it's just they didn't have the baisc understandings of science that we have now.
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
You meant "...more on defence than every other country..." Right? 'Cause that is much closer to the truth. (The U.S. might still be off by a couple of percent, but the recent drop in the dollar probably took care of that.)
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
Math is definitely different: Barring actual errors on the part of the mathematicians, mathematical theorems are proven to be correct. The most accepted and important ones have been checked over by many, many people, and so are exceedingly likely to be factual statements.
Chemistry has more room for error, but there are quite a few "facts" in Chemistry that are known to a high degree of certainty. That water is H2O can reasonably be called a "fact", rather than merely a "theory", as it's pretty much 100% likely to be true.
Explaining evolution, on the other hand, is an enterprise more akin to coming up with a theory about the fall of the Roman empire, or a model of global warming. There may be plenty of evidence, but it's difficult, at least given what we currently know, to prove it the way one might prove a mathematical theorem, or even know it to the certainty that we know the results in chemistry commonly called "facts".
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Uh...no. Read what you typed initially.
Granted, one weakness, if you will, of this type of forum is the inability to revise a post.
You're still missing the point. Look what you typed in this post: "The evidence of evolution is still there.." What do you mean by "evidence"? You're assigning causation in a situation in which none can be proven. Thus, you're mixing an ideology into "science."
Your next statement does the same thing. "humans' genetic similarity to monkeys, etc. suggest" Suggest? So now it's "suggest" as opposed to "fact." The top of my head is roughly a half-sphere which is quite similar in shape and size to a basketball. Does that "suggest" a common genetic ancestor between a basketball and my head? That's a ludicrous example, of course, but it's used to illustrate the point. You're taking similarity to the level of suggestion which you previously assigned to proof.
The main disagreement, I think, is you are looking at primarily one collection of interpretations of observations and treating it with near certainty while discounting contradictory interpretations. That's certainly allowable, but it's not PROOF.
Creation has massive bodies of evidence in its favor, wether you are aware of them or not. It's just as resilient in the face of discovery as evolutionary theory.
Your last comment is a straw man. You are assigning to me comments I did not make which making them yourself. I never claimed either of the points you stated. You are assigning them to creationism out of your own ignorance. There are massive bodies of evidence which can most easily be interpreted to indicate purposeful design.
Your intellectual dishonesty was assigning the conept of PROOF to a theory which you prefer while discounting contrary indications simply because of your own pernicious whim.
Well those half apes are probably all dead like the dinosaurs and we like to call them things other than half apes... like australopithecines and stuff. It kind of makes sense that organisms would evolve as a group until that group is split up for some reason and there is a branch on genetic threads. For example, where are the other members of the homo genus? A lot of folks think we killed out the other homo members and others think we interbred with them... then there's the ones who think we did a bit of both. Either way they aren't going to pass on their genes and we are.
-Derick
On your second point, that's the short form of what I personally believe.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
evolution is a theory and not a fact. but it's a pretty fucking good theory. unlike creationism, which is a theory founded on bullshit and make-believe. repeat after me: God does not exist, and he did not make people. (but that is just me theory...)
both are theories. two strike one down over the other is outright wrong....
...i await the negative karma this post will endure
in other news, the word of God is real. What he said may have just been transcribed so our simple minds, at the time, can comprehend it.
I'm a man of science, yet I am also a man of faith. The two are NOT mutually exclusive...
I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
Silly. It will always be a theory. Outside of pure mathematics and logic, there's no such thing as laws. Please don't confuse theory and hypothesis.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
Lord almighty, I hope to god you're trolling. You're on Slashdot, for crying out loud! It's perfectly ok for you to disagree with or not believe in evolution (at least, it's ok with me), but at least make a token effort to actually educate yourself as to what it is. Your whole sand and pentium 4 analogy demonstrates that you have a seriously misguided understanding of the mechanics of evolution, and what is required for it to take place (hint -- inert, non-reproducing materials like sand, lacking the need to compete for scarce resources, will not evolve).
The spontaneous generation of life from non-life (not actually so spontaneous), is not evolution, but rather a process called abiogenesis. The mechanics of this are still heavily disputed. But evolution, which presupposes the existance of life and deals with concepts like speciation and its ilk, has little to do with abiogenesis.
As for not having a soul, well... that's pretty much a function of your definition of soul, isn't it? Science is a pedantic thing. Christianity tends supply relatively vague (but nonetheless meaningful to christians) definition. Just what is a soul? If you can't even really explain it in a scientifically testable way, then science has nothing to say about it. Including that it doesn't exist.
As for permanent lack of consciousness, well, no one is making any claims one way or another. At least, I believe it, but it's a belief, and it's not any better or worse than any other belief, including belief in an after-life. There's no proof, either way. So science doesn't get in the way of this, either.
The biggest issue I take though is with your stance on morality. Are you suggesting that without religion, without a fear of reprisal or punishment, people wouldn't be moral? I'm a moral person, even by the standards of my religious friends, but I don't do it because I'm afraid to go to hell, because I don't believe in hell. I just do it because I feel it's the right thing to do. Your indirect implication that religious people are moral only because of their religious beliefs, and not simply because they're intrinsically good people, bothers me some.
There have been, lest we forget, some incredibly immoral people in our past, and many of them were religious (Hitler, for example) and many were not (Stalin). I don't see religion as having been a guiding force for good or evil, particularly -- people that want to be immoral will find ways to convince themselves that their religious or moral code condones their behaviour, regardless of what faith they attribute to themselves.
Anyway, your suggestion about putting a new sticker on the books is silly, because it would simply have the same effect as the original sticker, an effect ruled unconstitutional in a US court of law. Some other posters have suggested that this may be appealed and overturned anyway (and have presented good arguments to that effect).
Well, not to nitpick, but we are a Republic - not a Democracy. And I disagree wholeheartedly that, as such, a simple majority should be able to dictate religious beliefs in a public school. That is, in essence, a complete undermining of the freedom-of-religion pillar that we Americans hold so dear. If you agree that people of all sorts of faiths attend public school, I honestly do not see why it is so difficult to see why teaching any one creed over another violates that principle.
As you somewhat mentioned, we either have to teach all creeds with perfect equality (which is, of course, utterly impossible) or stick to testable, scientific methods to explain our existence.
The thought that a majority could simply outvote and instill their religious beliefs on my children in a public school scares the hell out of me - and if you support this, I don't think you really understand what freedom of (and from!) religion means.
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
I've often thought if you flipped that around - 'and man created God in his own image' - that it explains so, so much about religion.
I want a sticker in all bibles: "God is a myth, not a fact", and that statement is also completely true.
Replace 'myth' with 'theory'
No:
Main Entry: myth
Pronunciation: 'mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths
You can't take the sky from me...
From what I can tell, the Mormon church appears to have no real official position on evolution. Individual Mormons have diverse views.
and kids tend to come up with more better ideas when science is also enencumbered by the fear that any of a certain class of re-thinking will be automatically labeled "that old superstitious religion".
Words to spell, don't forget: privilege, knowledge. Both use to drive me crazy developing AI systems on VMS years ago.
No man's an island, unless he's had too much to drink and wets the bed.
I ask again - please post links to my /. posts where I get something wrong. Before you do, please lookup the difference between fact and opinion.
WKJ: "No, it isn't."
Pooua: If you do not understand our Judeo-Christian foundation, you will be unable to understand a simple phrase like,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
In terms of a godless, natural-force-only Universe, statements such as the heart of the Declaration of Independence have no meaning. I could cite many more examples, but this one example is sufficient to show that you are incorrect.
WKJ: And regardless, no matter what the foundation of our laws may indeed be, that does not mean you should require that those foundations be taught outright.
It wouldn't be much of a school system if it did not teach the foundations. But, more to the point, it would be a very bad school system if it forbade the teaching of the foundations, as is the case on this topic.
WKJ: A pagan society could also determine similar laws, even though the foundations may seem very different.
There may be the occassional simularity, but it would not be our system of laws and our understanding of human rights. In particular, our understanding of human rights differs greatly from those who claim that people--whether governments or the majority of voters--are the source of human rights, as we see in the culture war.
WKJ: And keep in mind that there were advanced civilizations long before Christianity.
Yes, and we regard most of those civilizations to have been brutal and barbaric, though those practices did not bother their contemporaries until Judeo-Christianity came along. Examples are numerous (the games of the Coliseum, human sacrifices of the Incas and Aztecs, the practice of Sati, etc.).
WKJ: I reiterate - no one should be denied religious expression, and we should all fight and die to protect that right if necessary -- but that is NOT what is at issue here.
Then why did you bring up the issue of separation of Church and State? You asked me a question, and I answered it, and now you say that issue has nothing to do with this issue.
Pooua: That would be an argument for the elimination of the public school system.
WKJ: I think this point is only valid if you do not see the difference between a religous belief and a scientific one. ... If it does require someone to share your faith, I am still not convinced why that should be taught in public schools.
I am unconvinced that children should be taught in classrooms in which discussion of God is banned.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
Show me one, just ONE verifiable observation of evolution which is a billion years old.
You can't.
At most, you could show some fossil which could be interpreted to mean something, but you can't show causation.
Even so, you're comments show you chose not to think in a scientific manner, you chose one view and refuse to contemplate any possibility.
I will agree with your statement that "Trying to claim equivalence between creationisma nd evolution is silly." in that they could be viewed as mutually exclusive. I don't agree with the rest of that paragraph at all. You've chosen to embrace one possible interpretation while excluding others.
You don't seem to be able to separate the "validity" of your belief in one interpretation of observations from your philosophical viewpoint. If you were, you'd understand just how transparent your post is.
Too, I'll have to ask you why if evolution is the exact science, why are there still monkies around?
Shouldn't they have evolved as well?
They did.
Why don't dolphins have thumbs by now?
Why would a dolphin need thumbs? They are perfectly well adapted to their environment. They are the top of their food chain.
Why can't rats talk yet?
Why should rats be able to talk? Rats are superbly adapted, and will probably outlast us. We couldn't wipe out the rats if we tried, so what evolutionary pressure is there to drive them to talk?
These are all questions based on a naive understanding of evolution based on the simple phrase "survival of the fittest". The seems to imply to people that if some adaptation (e.g. thumbs, speech, being able to fly, mutant super-powers) is or would be helpful, then that adaptation will necessarily arise and dominate. This is simply untrue.
A more accurate and revealing phrase might be "survival of the sufficiently fit". If a species is able to find food and procreate successfully then there is little pressure to change. Most mutations and new features are detrimental, not beneficial. Even if a "good" feature arises it will not necessarily spread and dominate if the rest of the species is able to do fine as they are. Even flaws -- sickle cell anemia, our vestigal appendix -- can survive if they aren't sufficiently damaging that they prevent survival (or in the case of sickle cell, can have benefits such as increased resistance to malaria).
You might as well ask why humans can't fly. We do just fine on the ground, thank you very much.
On the other hand, environmental pressure can quickly result in adaptation. Here is a fascinating example: poisonous toads imported to Australia were multiplying like crazy and killing the local predators that tried to eat them. Since their arrival in the 30's, a couple species of snakes have adapted to be able to more saftely eat these frogs. You see, snakes without the correct trait were not sufficiently fit and the pressure to change was huge.
Evolution is not an exact science -- the main theory for new features arising is random mutation of DNA! Questioning evolution because rats can't talk or because monkies can't fly and don't have laser eye beams is misunderstanding the point.
The enemies of Democracy are
There's nothing quite like a fundamentalist to stand in the way of the pursuit of truth and science. It just never gets old for them.
Dear God, please protect me from your insane followers.
Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.
Got a source for that?
Didn't think so, since it's almost certainly wrong. Depends on whether or not you can manage to redefine the majority "of the world" as being limited to the people as ignorant as you.
Unless it was supposed to be a joke. In which case it fell quite flat.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
The fifth citation is Shakespeare. What? That Shakespeare wrote a play that says some girl is the daughter of the king is suddenley proof of macroevolution?
I cannot tell if you are trying to mock macroevolution, or are just really clumsy in trying to support it.
I still don't see any written record of "last year/decade/century, animal species xyz lacked trait abc and this year/decade/century, the trait appeared. This new trait is such an improvement, that the old species will likely not survive." Mankind has 10,000+ years of written history - surely there should be a written record somewhere....
"The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
It seems to me that most "Christians" are modern day Pharisees. It's unfortunate too. No wonder the world does not believe.
Funny. In John 17:22, Jesus asks that his followers be one with Him as He is one with the Father. So THEN the world will recognize that God has sent Jesus.
Prophetic words, indeed. And you just hit the bullseye. Thumbs up for that one.
I'm not religious but it seems to me that the religious people are missing the real issue. It's not creation vs evolution; it's controlled evolution vs uncontrolled evolution. Evolution is a fact but the real question is if it was directed by an some unknown entity(s) (god, aliens, etc) or by chaotic enviromental conditions.
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
Do people really not understand that creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive? Do people really not understand that science develops theories about how things happen whereas theology gives us reasons why things happen?
Why do so many people persist in conflating these two?
Meh.
I stand by my definition. A law is a theory that is short enough to be expressed simply in an equation (or sentence, I suppose) and basic enough that other theories are built on it. Like, for instance, Newton's Laws of Motion or Maxwells Laws of Electrodynamics (both of which, incidentally, are factually disproven now but match the data closely enough that it's not embarassing to teach them).
All's true that is mistrusted
What is proof? It is the logical form showing the only correct answer based on given propositions. This is fundamentally different from scientific theory, in which one of several possible models that fits data is preferred. 1+1=2 is proved because that is the only logical conclusion based on the initial propositions. Common descent with modification is not proved, because there are too many alternatives possible.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
People who deal with faith understand that real belief tends to engender an ability to let others believe what they will. The need to defend is derived from a weak position.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, either, because defense often refines and strengthens understanding.
But this business about courts preventing school systems from stickering textbooks with a reminder that science is not the be-all and end-all of truth is attempting to use law to prevent the sciencists from having to defend their point.
When the unwashed, sweaty cows hear the word "theory," they believe the speaker is really saying, "guess," which is incorrect. But then, those cows have never even bothered to read the Origin of Species (it is not a hard read), so WTF do they know?
Yeah, right.
That's ridiculous... God's tears cause rain not thunder... Thor's hammer causes thunder and lightning...
The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed (SK)
I've got another theory that needs equal time too!
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
The wording of the actual stickers in this case, however, were much more neutral than this. The problem with them seems to have been that independent of what they said, they were put on the books with the motivation to support a particular religious view. The government is not allowed to do this.
Common misconception
yes, it looks like the truth, but really it's just a weasely scheme to undermine science in schools.
Look behind the curtain
(yeah, I know you know this. can't let it stay unanswered though)
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
this is not about free spech -1. Free speech is the freedom of self-expression. TEACHING creationism is forcing those knowledge onto the students. If a student in Georgia cannot choose whether he wants to be taught creationism or evolution, then the teacher is violating his rights as a student, therefore, freedom of speech no longer applies.
The right to speech freedom cannot be viewed solely independently - other laws have to hold too. Sure you can yell "I will kill you Bush" at the inauguration due to "free speech," but you will be arrested for "conspiracy of murder against the president."
Text books belong to the school.
School Board puts sticker on THEIR books. It's just labeling their property.
The statement on the sticker is true... so what's all the fuss about? Even the most rabid proponents of evolution still call it a theory. (As all good scientists should)
This quote is just silly:
By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories,” U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said.
The process observed in the parent post, whereby a human turns into a monkey.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
If it is very easy, it isn't correct or useful. Life is far more complex than simple chemistry. What evolutionists do, instead, is present schematic models. However, these models break down on closer examination.
And you can go watch various stages of it if you happen to own a really good submarine.
If you think so, then you don't know what you are seeing.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
Go fuck yourself, you utter, utter fool. And get off Slashdot; you clearly don't belong here.
No, that is not the only reason. Another reason--the one that I spoke of in my post--is that people who hate Christianity are using evolution and the scientific community as tools in their attack against Christianity.
If fundamentalist Christians would not insist on a foolish dogmatic literal interpretation of a translation of Genesis then that attack would be toothless.
It is exactly like Galileo -- the only reason his observation of the world could be used against the Church is because the Church refused to drop their dogma. If they had accepted the truth Galileo presented, what then could anyone have said?
In the same way the Creationists are their own worst enemy. The "attack" is to say: look, the Creationists deny facts that we observe every day because a religious text says different (according to them)! It'd be rather hard to say that if Creationists weren't denying facts, wouldn't it? So, might I humbly suggest trying that?
The enemies of Democracy are
As to the special properties of certain atoms, molecules, and universal constants that permit life as we know it to exist, that argument is cyclical. We're here, so life exists; hence there must be some way for it to exist. Perhaps one day we'll find out how the universal constants got that way, until then you can merrily claim that a God did it for all I care.
Finally, as to the Ten Plagues, the only evidence of them I could turn up after some Googling are the "Admonitions of Ipuwer," which describe political turmoil in Egypt and a foreign invasion. The colorful language used in the papyrus does suggest rivers of blood, apparently, but then again wars are pretty bloody.
You equate "evolution" with "anticipatory change," revealing a lack of understanding of the principles of evolution as laid out by Charles Darwin. The principles are random mutations and gradual spread of beneficial mutations due to the increased viability of individuals possessing them.
In some places in the world, religious people are respected for their wisdom, because their philosophy makes them happy in this world. Are you so dissatisfied with your own religion that you have to resort to loud, desperate, and myopic assertions that everyone else is living a lie?Sigmentation fault - core dumped
"Constitutionally correct" science that is.
Just what we need.
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
Who says what is "fittest"? Who said that survival is some sort of fitness? Fit for what? Survival for how long? What happens when the human race, chasing short term survival, extinguishes itself?
More important question -- who, or what, deemed that survival should occur in the first place? Why is survival a principle that matters?
If you wave it off as just chance, you're still dodging the question. Who or what determined that chemical chance should have the necessary biases to produce life?
The answer is that whatever you say created the world and all that is in it is your god.
But science has to keep its hands off that question, and for very good reason. If it doesn't, it gets into the business of telling each and every person they have to believe in the same ultimate creator. And that is not science.
Great post, but the best way to survive war is to avoid it alltogether.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Uh, thanks. A quite cogent reply. I'll make time to read a few of these. I have to admit I doubt it'll change my mind (I've read other things by C.S. Lewis and I don't find his arguments convincing, and I'm not talking about Narnia), but I'll give it a try. At the very least it'll give me a better ground on which to frame my argument.
I'm particularly interested in the McDowell book, because I particularly doubt one is likely to derive Christianity from first principles. That is, going from being an atheist to a Christian (as implied by the title of the book), as opposed to arriving at some other religion. But if he can, it would be a neat trick. I'll have to see if my local library has it.
Philosophical argumentation is not evidence, sorry. 150 years of research by 100's of thousands of researchers, comprising the entirety of modern biology, has provided abundant evidence for evolution.
Jesus.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
Then why laud the court for siding with the those who are making the biggest noise right now?
If they should be limiting themselves to law, they should be limiting themselves to law, and not trying to tell the board of education that they can't stand up for a group of people who want their kids to know that there are a lot of pretend scientists out there saying theory is better than fact.
If the real Jesus Christ were to stand up today
He'd be gunned down cold by the CIA
Oh, the lights that now burn brightest behind stained glass
Will cast the darkest shadows upon the human heart
But God didn't build himself that throne
God doesn't live in Israel or Rome
God doesn't belong to the yankee dollar
God doesn't plant the bombs for Hezbollah
God doesn't even go to church
And God won't send us down to Allah to burn
God will remind us what we already know
That the human race is about to reap what it's sown
Islam is rising
The Christians mobilising
The world is on its elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds
"It's saying that God doesn't commit these evil acts. The things that are committed in the name of God are not God's doing. They're just mankind's doing. All this wickedness is the animal nature of man being expressed. There is no Satan. The Devil lives in the human heart. The only devil is the human ego or the lower nature of man. The God that inspired the prophets is the one God no institution or religion has a monopoly on. That same force is here today for anyone to use it. God is not a relic from the past. It's a human birthright. I feel very strongly about the misuse of God as a tool for suppressing humanity, which is what it's been used for throughout the centuries."
-Matt Johnson/The The
Melody Maker 1989
http://www.lipsticklibrarian.com/blog/archives/000 025.html
http://www.applelinks.com/articles/2002/04/2002042 3140855.shtml
http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/a/021969.htm
None of the stuff on it matches up to reality. It's funny, sure. But it's not real.
Hooray! When do you think they'll finally succeed in wiping out those superstitious fools? O happy day!
This is true. No doubt about it. If God exists, he either plays by the rules He created or he doesn't.
r oof. "Scientific" thoughts from people who don't accept contrary observations...
What if God isn't meddlesome? If we start with the concept of a capricious God, then, yes, it's a horrible situation in which most rational people would not want to participate. It could lead to a situation in which they could be morally superior to God which leads to ciruclar impossibilities (He can't be inferior and superior...)
Could it be that the projection of being "meddlesome" is a projection which is more related to human frailties than anything else? Sure. People with lunatic ideas about themselves and God create problems, just as lunatic "scientists" create problems. Think, Piltdown Man or the study of how bumps on your head determined where your life would lead you. Copernicus was almost killed for claiming hte Earth rotated around the Sun. "Scientists" of that time were just as blinded as many people today who have mixed their philosophies and hopes of reality into evolution.
There are people on both extremes of the debate who give simple illustrations of their views. Jerry Falwell is certainly quite controversial, and maybe even dangerous, but he has a wonderful example. He says believing in evolution is similar to throwing a handful fo metal into the air expecting that at some point a pocket watch will fall down. It's an elegant argument. Would it be any different if a handful of mixed cells were thrown into the air an infinite number of times in the belief a tree frog would fall back down? Of course not, it's silly.
IOW, why is it so hard for people to accept the possibility that creationism doesn't mean some kind of magic words and *poof*, such and such exists. Yes, I know, Genesis has passages that say, "God said, 'Let there be light.' and it was so..." Well, how many people here know enough about ancient recorded language to know if that was poetic language? Was it a summary?
If you read the score of a football game was 21-11, does that mean it just instantly became the reality or was there a sequence of events which caused it to happen?
If there is a God who created the physical environment in which we live, that would also mean He created the inter-relationships within that environment. That would mean "science", which is essentially an organized method of observation from within the system, is entirely dependent upon the realities which He created, it could not exist in their absence.
So many of the replies in this thread are evolution-only-no-God-you're-stupid-you-have-no-p
There is no theory of common descent that does not include humans.
We have observed speciation in other species.
Most of these events are actually the formation of sub-species. At this point, this argument becomes one of semantics; what is a species? Rather than argue along that line, I will point out that my original statement has not been negated by your statement, because you are not addressing common descent, but only subsequent speciation. It remains unknown whether all forms of life evolved from a common ancestor, though that is the claim of the theory of common descent.
It happens, it is fact.
It is a fact that one type of bird has been observed to give rise to another, slightly different type of bird. This is not the same thing as common descent, and it remains unproven whether common descent is even possible, much less whether it actually occurred.
Did it happen with humans? Well, that's just a theory, but the only objection to the idea that humans evolved similarly to other animals including those we have obsereved is dogmatic.
That would be a sloppy way of thinking in other branches of science; it is not sufficient to claim that a theory must be accepted as an historical fact simply because no one has produced an alternative theory. Claiming that observed examples of speciation (or sub-speciation) demonstrates the process that led to humans is an argument by a hyper-extended analogy.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
In terms of a godless, natural-force-only Universe, statements such as the heart of the Declaration of Independence have no meaning. I could cite many more examples, but this one example is sufficient to show that you are incorrect.
;) Just because X played an important role in our (what I believe to be) somewhat advanced society does not mean X is the only path, and hence, should be instilled over the populace. I believe the founding fathers emphasized freedom of religion because they knew exactly how dangerous and horrible public enforcement of religion could be, and I am happy to take their word for it (our country was born from the need to escape from religious persecution, after all). Just as we should fight to protect freedom of religion, we should also fight to make sure no one attempts to instill a religious belief on us or our children.
No, not quite, because the true meaning of the declaration of independance lies in our laws - not in this (admittedly beautiful) line. Again, the best thing about our founding fathers is that they seperated the foundation from the implementation. Yes, I agree that the basis of our laws is the Judeo/Christian tradition. That does not logically indicate that such belief systems should be instilled on the populace, if you believe in the seperation of church and state in public arenas, which I certainly do.
But, more to the point, it would be a very bad school system if it forbade the teaching of the foundations, as is the case on this topic.
Not if you view the foundations as somewhat arbitrary. Yes, our foundations are X... but that does not mean that the same conclusions could not have been met if they weren't Y. Again, advanced civilizations have existed long before X
Yes, and we regard most of those civilizations to have been brutal and barbaric, though those practices did not bother their contemporaries until Judeo-Christianity came along. Examples are numerous (the games of the Coliseum, human sacrifices of the Incas and Aztecs, the practice of Sati, etc.).
Wow, brush up on a bit of your history and I think you will find quite a few atrocities commited in the name of Christianity. As for regarding those civilizations as brutal and barbaric - I agree... and I also think that, unfortunately, not all that much as changed since then. I can think of a few brutal and barbaric practices that are being enforced by our goverment at this very instant.
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
>Then I want a sticker in all bibles: "God is a myth, not a fact", and that statement is also completely true.
That's a flawed comparison. A _correct_ one would be "not all material in this book has been proven." There are quite a few things in the bible that have been proven. Besides, anyone who blatently goes around yelling "God doesn't exist" is more close-minded than a stereo-typical southern baptist. Have you ever even bothered to think "what if"? Or are you too afraid of what you might find? Creepy, eh?
In line at the Best Buy? Cuz I think everyone was there, seeing how big that line was. I know Jesus was there, clutching a 80%-off DVD player to his chest...
If secular humanism only attacked fundamentalist Christianity, I might be inclined to think you are correct. However, that is not the case. The anti-Christians proceed by removing reference to God in all aspects of public life, not just in the classroom or in discussions of biology. Hence, God is not to be mentioned in government; the Ten Commandments are not to be allowed in courthouses (despite the fact that it is one of the foundational documents of our civilization); presidents are not to be given an oath of office that references God or uses a Bible; the Pledge of Allegiance is not to mention God; and so forth.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
Ahh garbage mathematics at it's best...
.
.
follow this pattern for me sometime
1/9 = 0.1111..
2/9 = 0.2222..
8/9 = 0.8888..
so 9/9 must equal 0.9999....
wait hold on.
therefore 0.0000..0001 is equal to zero, yet greater than zero..
One big fuji apple plus one crabapple == two apples?
One key for a symmetric crypt + one key for an asymmetric crypt == two keys?
On a single digit readout voltmeter, 1V + 1V == 2V?
The world is a huge place, and there are places where the rules just don't seem the same.
And there are people who believe in a God who wants them to be free to take a break from work once a week, rather than a god who wants to burn for stepping out of line.
(Actually, the burning in hell is for the bosses who insist on planning the schedules as if one eighty hour week were just as productive as two forty hour weeks, month after month after year.)
Yes, but I have seen quite a few scientific theories (which (gasp!) use the scientific method) to support the existance of "god" and/or the vailidty of religious texts such as the bible.
This seems to be to be a very fuzzy gray area. "Elites" like to pass off religious people as simply uninformed or ignorant. Realisticly, this is not the case. There are a huge number of very smart religous people who are capable of critical thinking and applying scientific principles. The two ideologies are not necessary mutually exclusive.
Saying something can not be taught because it can not be "proved" to your acceptance is not a good criteria. Everyone used to think the world was flat. Refusing to teach that it was round simply because it (at the time) it required a small leap of "faith" is ridiculous.
Moreover, many of us put our faith in science. There are fundamental "laws" which we believe to be true based on our observations. Does that mean they are unequivically true and can never be violated? No. Is science constantly evolving as we learn new things? Yes. Everyone who believes in science MUST put their faith in what we have learned and simultaneously know that it is subject to change as we learn more.
Religion is an organized set of believes. Science falls into this category.
I have had things that could be called divine experiences. The only problem was, while I had observed them, and others reported having similar experiences, none of that proves the existance of God.
All it proves is that there is something beyond what we can easily observe. This is generally accepted -- ever hear of dark matter/energy?
To have a "spiritual" experience and then dust off a 2000-year-old self-contradictory, hyper-violent, judgemental, hypocritical text and using that to explain something is missing an incredible opportunity.
The opportunity is to observe what you experience, scientifically. You may be disappointed and disenchanted to find that it all came from indigested pepperoni. But you may also find something far more incredible than anything the Bible tells you, and far more real and accessible.
That, to me, is the difference between a religious person and a spiritual person. A religious person "believes" something they have no basis for, and are usually quite closed-minded about it. A spiritual person has an open mind and is far more willing to believe in the reality of things they experience which haven't been explained by science.
I think I know why there are more religious people than spiritual people. Spiritual people, being open-minded, don't impose their beliefs on others, and will more readily believe the beliefs of others. Religious people are not only steadfast (read: stubborn, pigheaded) in their beliefs, but tend to impose them on everyone.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I will start with the last question first:
What does any of that have to do with evolution?
If you are talking about the evolution of life on earth then the GP post is explaning the implementation of evolution. If you are talking about the evolution of a galaxy then it may only be significant to humans.
I can only assume the other two questions are rhetorical.
What are you talking about?
Are you just making stuff up?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
This argument is provably false, and the fact that creationists keep using it is one of the best proofs that creationism is not a science. A scientist does not continue using an argument that is known to be false. I am a physicist. Physics does not say that entropy always increases. Entropy must increase only when you have a closed system: no energy or matter goes in or out. So yes, when you add sunlight the entropy on Earth decreases. If this argument had any validity all life would be impossible. The process of growing from an embroyo to an infant to an adult human involves continuous decrease in entropy, fueled by energy entering the system. The people who told you the argument based on entropy are lying to you, which is neither scientific nor Christian.
Mutations are rare and usually sterile, except for sometimes, when a fish with leg-type fins will be able to reproduce to create other fish with leg-type fins.
Pretty much. You do know that there are fish with leg-type fins still alive today. And they can breathe air for short periods of time--long enough to flop from a pool that is drying up to a larger body of water.
Evolution is slow, with minor changes each time, but all the minor stages between Ape and Human died out for some reason.
Yeah, so? Why would that be a surprise? Most of the species that have existed on the Earth are extinct. Our last living relatives (that we know of) seem to have died out less than 13000 years ago. Too bad they couldn't have stuck around a bit longer to prove to you that they existed.
Evidence in the archaeological record, coupled with modern experimentation and observation, indicate that evolution is a good explanation, and quite probably occurred. That is not to say that it undeniably did.
I never mentioned causation, on the other hand. Let's swat down that straw man right now.
If a basketball had cells with genes similar to mine, and I saw basketballs being born and passing on their genes, I would be inclined to believe there was a common ancestor. You're singling out a particular aspect of the issue and examining it in a vacuum - fun in debates, fatal in scientific endeavor.
I call bullshit. Every 'intelligent design' discussion I've ever seen has said "Oh, here's a problem with evolution, there must be a God!" Even were we to suppose that evolution wasn't responsible for whatever phenomenon the theists seized on, automatically assuming intelligent design is invalid.As to your claims of a straw man on my part, I was addressing the general issue being discussed here, which is "Does 'intelligent design' deserve equal treatment with Evolution?" And until 'intelligent design' advocates get a lot better at giving positive evidence, intelligent design will continue to be far-fetched.
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
Can't imagine why you would say so.
I think you mistake breeze for steam. But that's you're privilege, you insignificant little speck of carbon, you.
I, at least, know that I am less than the dust of the earth.
What the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution really says is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
Why do people always forget the part about free exercise of religion? If religion is so full of @!$# as so many seem to be saying here, what have you got to fear from someone exercising a little freedom?
Furthermore, the logic of this ruling totally escapes me:
Some religious people don't believe in evolution.
All scientists believe that evolution is a theory supported by the facts.
Therefore, to agree with the scientists and say that evolution is a theory is to impose a religion.
Huh?
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
No, I do understand the concept of gradual mutation. That's exactly what makes the theory so untenable. Darwin mentioned the eye, didn't he? What did he state about it? All the parts have to be there for it to work, don't they? So...a mess of unusable sub-structures of eyes just happened to randomly mutate on a multitude of creatures, consuming resources until *poof* all of a sudden they had a complete eye? That's nuts.
Yes, I know it's a circular argument, that was part of my point. There are things which are unprovable. Thus, claims that evolution is right and creationism is wrong can't be proven one way or the other. It comes down to a philosophical viewpoint, not a scientific certainty. It's perfectly fine with me if you don't believe in God. If you place a zealous belief that your existance is due to minute probability in an infinite physical realm, it just means you believe in another god, that of random chance.
Google is a search engine for web pages. It's not an exhaustive reference for archaeological information.
Your last sentence really seems like you describing yourself. It certainly doesn't describe me. If you are "living a lie", that's for you to realize, it's doesn't affect me one way or the other.
Telling school children that scientific theory is just theory is a game of dishonest semantics. The sense of the word theory in a scientific context is quite different from its common usage. In everyday usage, theory means an opinion based upon sketchy evidence. In science, a theory remains a theory no matter how well founded--even when everyone agrees that it is a fact. Gravity is a theory. Changing your mind about it will not give you the power to fly. To confuse the two meanings deliberately in a children's textbook, as this does, is a deliberate lie.
All over the world, religious adherents are using the old arguments of postmodernism to try to discredit science wherever it contradicts their beliefs. They are not engaging in scientific debate, but in meta-debates, using methods from literary criticism to paint science as mere opinion and orthodoxy. They are not talking about evidence. They are arguing that evidence itself is irrelevant. And they are not talking to scientists, who have already heard all their arguments and refuted them soundly. They are talking to people without any scientific knowledge, preferrably as young as they can get them. From the sound of some of the responses on this post, they've been talking to a lot of the people here. The goal is political. They can't refute science, but if they get enough votes, they can outlaw it.
I'm not kidding about this. The strategy is called The Wedge, and the long term goal (we're talking in terms of generations here) is to encourage a widespread attitude of distrust towards science and skeptical thinking. The have identified science, quite correctly, as the greatest threat to the type of magical thinking required for fundamentalist religions. Muslim and Hindu extremists have come to the same conclusion, as have a horde of New Age con men and fortune tellers, and are fighting for the same goal; the disparagement of science and the scientific method.
Anyone here who does not think that the scientific method works, throw out your computer now. And your car, all your appliances, hell, you should probably burn your house, because all of these things, the way they're made, the materials they are made of, are possible because of science. You probably would not be alive without the medicine and food that scientific advances have made possible. Think of the number of people who just died in the Asian Tsunami who would have lived if there had been an early warning system. Ignorance kills.
And if you think that evolution is just a theory or 'pseudo-scientific propaganda', that there are lots of arguments against it and its on shaky ground, then you haven't bothered to read the literature. I'm sorry, but all the arguments against it advanced by ID theorists and Creationists have been answered, and there is no alternative theory that has anywhere near the same volume of evidence to support it. If you don't know this, I suspect you either don't care to know it, or would refuse to acknowledge any evidence no matter how sound.
I agree that there's evidence for genetic change, for example in bacteria, but the specific claim that humans evolved from previous mammals is backed up mostly by circumstantial evidence. It's likely to be true, but it's not very well documented, and the actual claims keep changing every decade or so.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
But aren't you describing microevolution? I think the strongest debates come when we talk about macroevolution. Where is the physical proof for new species coming from a predecessor?
If you don't understand something, how much weight should your disagreement with it carry?
How can you be sure that you actually disagree with it, if you don't understand it?
Case in point; the vast majority of people commenting on this story in favor of creationism are repeating ID/Creationist "talking points" which are often, at their core, based on misinformation, or at least a (hopefully unintentional) misunderstanding of some core principle or other.
This is because evolution, not unlike calculus, requires a fair amount of effort to understand. But when a laymen asks what Calculus is good for, he'll be told something like, "It provides the mathematical machinery needed to study rates of change, which allows people who have studied it to apply it to widely diverse fields like economics, finance, and physics." And he'll think, "Oh, that doesn't sound too bad. I want my kid to understand that."
But with evolution, he's told "It explains the process whereby one species becomes another species, and under what circumstances those changes occur," and he thinks, "What does that mean? What spieces becomes another species?" and he's then told, good naturedly, something like, "Oh, you know, like monkeys evolving into men."
Which clashes with his religious understanding, and so he rejects it. He doesn't understand it -- he doesn't understand the evidence for it. Furthermore, he doesn't want to. Do you know what this would do to his safe, secure world view? Science is scary in this respect -- dogma is never supported for long. Just look at the luminiferous aether. Michaelson and Morely both never truly accepted the results of their now famous experiment. But the rest of the world did, science required it.
That kind of stuff is scary.
But so is women's lib, and anti-segregation, and all that. You can't let an uneducated group, even an uneducated majority, make decisions in education, at least not public education. Private education, well, that's a different story.
> So is Intelligent Design, which is gaining creedance as an alternative theory.
ID isn't a theory; it's a collection of half-assed armchair arguments against evolution (or, often as not, against a misrepresentation of evolution), attached to the non sequitur conclusion "therefore an intelligent designer must have done it".
Also, for some strange reason it's only "gaining credence" among creationists... and a few stray Raelians.
ID is nothing but an attempt to sneak creationism into the public school curriculum. Its authors learned from the failure of the Creation Science movement a generation ago: the overt creationism brought it into conflict with the Establishment Clause, and the tangible claims were falsified. ID attempts to skirt both those problems, by substituting cryptocreationism for overt creationism, and by eliminating the science altogether. I.e., ID is Creation Science without the intellectual honesty.
Many scientists have pointed out the folly of ID as "science", and now at least one judge has spotted the cryptocreationism.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
People ridicule that which they don't understand and that which threatens them.
The theory (not FACT) of evolution doens't threaten me. Why does the theory of creation threaten you so much?
I addressed the mixture of philosophy and theory combined with dogmatic derision of a competing theory. You attack personally.
Guess that makes you the person who's got a weak foundation, doesn't it? Yup.
Scientific theories are not things that have been proven to be correct. For example, the theory of relativity was called such long before it was experimentally verified.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
...to what benefit to you or the world in general?
IANAM
If E = X
it does not imply that
A=X, B=X or C=X.
Unless the sum of the other two values is known to be zero.
Since A,B & C are all true, all you can say is E=X=A + B + C.
The X, like your post, is redundant.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Famous Atheist Now Believes in God? At age 81?
anybody tested this guy for Alzheimer's?
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
A theorem is different than a theory. A theorem can actually be mathematically proven, where as a theory can never be known to be 100% accurate.
"The textbook stickers are a reasonable and evenhanded guide to science instruction and encouraging students to be critical thinkers," the board said. :D
Why in the world was the parent modded down to 0? I know that there are a lot of trolls with mod points but damn. This guy's comment is certainly not deserving of a negative mod of any sort.
I haven't laughed so hard in quite awhile... thanks.
No man's an island, unless he's had too much to drink and wets the bed.
WKJ: No, not quite, because the true meaning of the declaration of independance lies in our laws - not in this (admittedly beautiful) line.
The laws we have are based on our theory of government and rights. If you believe that human rights come from sets of people, then you will produce very different laws than if you believe that human rights come from God.
Again, the best thing about our founding fathers is that they seperated the foundation from the implementation.
The implementation must derive from the foundation. If you do not understand the foundation, then you cannot completely understand the implementation.
Yes, I agree that the basis of our laws is the Judeo/Christian tradition. That does not logically indicate that such belief systems should be instilled on the populace,
I believe that the preservation of our Liberty depends on the understanding of our people as to the theory behind our laws.
if you believe in the seperation of church and state in public arenas, which I certainly do.
I don't, especially if it requires leaving the public ignorant of how we got where we are!
Pooua: But, more to the point, it would be a very bad school system if it forbade the teaching of the foundations, as is the case on this topic.
WKJ: Not if you view the foundations as somewhat arbitrary.
I don't so view it, and you don't give me any reason that I should. Yes, our foundations are X... but that does not mean that the same conclusions could not have been met if they weren't Y.
Quite to the contrary, if you believe that human rights come from popular opinion, then you can justify the denial of certain rights by saying that the majority opposed. Some people make such arguments, but that is not the basis of our government. Our outcome is not arbitrary; it is a logical extension of its foundations. Logic is not an arbitrary practice!
Again, advanced civilizations have existed long before X ;) Just because X played an important role in our (what I believe to be) somewhat advanced society does not mean X is the only path, and hence, should be instilled over the populace.
An academic point is that this rootlessness you describe is the heart of historic Liberalism.
Outcomes are the results of preceding actions. Though there may be a few simular conclusions reached by various civilizations, none of them will reach all the same conclusions we hold dear, because they have different principles.
I believe the founding fathers emphasized freedom of religion because they knew exactly how dangerous and horrible public enforcement of religion could be, and I am happy to take their word for it (our country was born from the need to escape from religious persecution, after all).
Wouldn't it be horrible to suffer under unjust laws? Does that mean that all laws should be disbanded? I do not believe so. Nor do I believe that our Judeo-Christian foundations should be expunged from public view under the guise that this protects religions or our society.
Just as we should fight to protect freedom of religion, we should also fight to make sure no one attempts to instill a religious belief on us or our children.
We should also fight attempts to force a religious vacuum. Morality and law cannot exist in such a vacuum, as they are the expression of religious belief.
Yes, and we regard most of those civilizations to have been brutal and barbaric, though those practices did not bother their contemporaries until Judeo-Christianity came along. Examples are numerous (the games of the Coliseum, human sacrifices of the Incas and Aztecs, the practice of Sati
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
Science is about more than the "possibility" of things. Scientists don't deny that any explanation that fits the facts could be true. They try to find an explanation that fits the facts and is most useful in planning for the future.
If you state that there is a God who set up everything so that we'd find the world the way it is, nobody can refute you. But your statement becomes meaningless to scientists, as science seeks to predict based on the past. As such, science isn't a search for absolute "truth," it's a search for rules that, backed up by past experience, predict future developments. That is not to say that we predict the future completely; probability still plays a role. However, we can characterize future developments in a way that is useful to people.
If you choose to argue about the nature of Absolute Truth, you have an uphill battle, as Buddhists, Taoists, Shintoists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc. each lay similar claims, and there is no way to argue about whether God created Heaven and Earth, whether the universe is an expression of Buddha-mind, whether it is a flow of Ch'i, whether all atoms are their own tiny gods, whether it is made and broken by the wheel of Karma, whether Allah called it into being, or what. Have fun.
If you choose the scientific path instead, then you have to get off your high horse and start trying to make predictions with us scientists. We've been embracing systematic, predictable systems of development throughout our training; you'd get pretty humble pretty quick.
The purpose of a science book is to teach people the skills of prediction based on experience. Hence the teaching of evolution, a predictive theory based on past experience, is quite reasonable. Teaching that God made everything the way it is, so He could break it just as easily, doesn't help anyone, it just makes Christians feel good.
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
Evolution is with us also, even if you choose not to accept it.
I propose a simple test for you. (Once I managed to do something like this by accident) Grab a bunch of bananas, make dessert or something from the fruit and leave the peels to rot in a biowaste container. Wait for some time. Fruit flies will appear.
As they are swarming, you can easily kill off the slowest ones and those which just sit still. Do so. What you are left are the fastest ones who move in very random trajectories. Since those are not so easy to kill, leave them be.
After a little while, those fruit flies will breed. Soon you will have more fruit flies. Again, kill off the slowest ones, those which are easiest to kill.
Now, repeat this procedure a couple of times.
And guess what? Those fast-flying randomly flying ones which are hard to kill will become a majority.
If this is not evolution, what is?
Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but matters of belief are not matters of science. If someone needs Creationism as "evidence" to justify a Divine Creator to themselves, maybe they have not found their Divine Creator after all.
I do not moderate.
- The theory that genetic characteristics, not acquired characteristics, are what is inherited (ie: no Lamarckism).
- The theory that the mutations are random and undirected.
Although I wouldn't claim to be reading at the forefront of evolutionary theory, there is quite a common understanding now that evolution is not a constant ongoing process for most cases, but rather happens in quite fast jumps or leaps. Or rather there is a slow on-going process, but most of the action happens in irregular spikes.
Although I wouldn't have the faintest what the exact process is, these jumps tend to end with a number groups rather than a myriad of individual variations. This seems to be more due to 'chaotic process' rather than anything specific to evolution.
Your point about the dogs would probably challenge this evolutionary theory if it wasn't for the fact that there are very very few real 'original' dog breeds. Most dogs are the product of centuries of human-controlled breeding for specific traits. The sheer number and variation of breeds is really due to this than any evolutionary process.
An empirical theory can be called into question as far as in regards to it being empirical if there isn't at least some way to attempt to prove it wrong.
That's not to say that evolution is wrong, only that there needs to be a possibility that it can be challenged - it's not an absolute truth.
All science is a theory - the only absoulute truth is that there are no absolute truths. This includes things like medical science (a.k.a. the church of modern medicine), which people treat more like a religion than they do science.
It's not wrong to say that evolution is a theory - it's an empirical theory. It's not wrong to say that creation is an absolute truth for those who are members of certain Christian congregations - it is, creation certainly isn't being presented by the religions that believe in it as an empirical theory (you can't prove it wrong - it's just something you have to take on faith.)
So it's not that evolution isn't a theory - of course it is, but all of science is - duh. That's what students are supposed to be learning. There has to be the presumption that any scientific theory could theoretically be proved wrong; any empirical theory that claims to be the absolute truth no longer really qualifies as being an empirical theory.
> Nah. On the seventh day, God went Commando!
Pretty bold, for a guy with ten commandments!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The judge may be right. He's closer to the problem than we are.
But the parents are closer than the judge, so I tend to side with the parents when I'm watching from here.
Evolution as the principle that created life is a theory. It's a well supported class of theories, but not proven.
If the textbook does a good job of exploring evolution as a biological principle and the potential role of evolution in bringing life about, then it probably should not need the label. But that is an ethical issue, and the judge should not be judging ethical issues unless either the book or the label or both is being used to intimidate people.
I can't see how anyone would be intimidated by that label. Possible, sure. Maybe those 2000 parents are using that label to threaten those seven parents and force their kids to pray in school. But I didn't see any mention of that.
The only thing I can read out of the article is that seven parents were agast that the merest hint that there might be something non-mechanical going on in the universe, and the judge said their rights trumped the rights of the 2000 parents to want something a little less sterile for their kids.
(Unfortunately, pretend scientists do get into textbooks. Since we don't have the textbook in question, it's hard to say if that is the case here.)
You can't really test evolution either, due to the massive times over which it is supposed to be happening.
Another problem is that people coming from a scientific background continually try and derive religion. That is the scientific way, after all. Start assuming nothing, look around, see what you have, start connecting it together and see what you end up with. But Protestant Christianity (the only religion I am really familiar with doctrinally; I assume other modern religions make similar claims in this respect) expressly says that it is not possible to derive it from the surrounding world. (The Bible says that the natural world is sufficient to demonstrate the existance of a God, but not to understand His nature).
Christianity claims that it can only be understood on the basis of a revelation from God (ie: the Bible). If you accept that as an assumption, it all makes sense. If you don't, it will all look weird and dis-jointed. Jesus explicitly says that none of the people hearing him are going to understand what he's really saying. It is only later when they accept Jesus as the Son of God that they look back and think "In the light of what I know now, it all makes sense.".
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
I can't wait until they identify and promptly remove that silly theist gene from the human gene pool.
Replace it maybe with something more useful like gills or a third nipple.
Bacterial flagella and eukaryotic cilia are irreducibly complex But anyways, science has barely finished the human genome, and it doesn't yet have enough mammal genomes to reconstruct the mammalian last common ancestor. I wouldn't expect them to have all the genomes needed to show the most likely flagella pathways. On the other hand science / evolution has explained:
Uh...no. You're examples starts with "2", not "1". The theory of evolution has a starting point, doesn't it? Even those "simpler, complete eye structures" have to evolve from...nothing...which means they start as...what? Unfunctioning extra tissue which consumes resources and returns...nothing.
Many many people are descended from the founders of the Mormon church. Honestly, check how many wives, and how many children they had - some of them had as many as 50 children (via 20 or so wives). Do that for a few of generations while polygamy is still acceptable and you could end up with over 100,000 descendants...
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
my high school biology text books never talk about the 100th monkey thingy
I mean, shouldn't it be in the book?
Although, technically, "The Theory if Evolution" is a theory, and not a fact, which I assume is what they meant, as a lot of people use "Evolution" to colloquially indicate the longer phrase. Evolution in itself is an observed fact, and the theory of evolution is an explanation of the what and why of evolution, just as gravity is a fact and the theory of gravity is the what and why of gravity.
Just my 2 cents on the semantics of it.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
"What is proof? It is the logical form showing the only correct answer based on given propositions."
Right. Based on given propositions. It's turtles all the way down.
They will never stop until somebody makes the
> Creationists such as myself believe that the Creator made each plant after its kind and each animal after its kind, and the animals escaped the Great Flood of 1656 on Noah Cruise Lines two by two after their kind. Intelligent design does not require that the Creator make each species separately; consider that the "kind" in "after its kind" is cognate to Latin genus.
So you appeal to evolution-on-steroids in your alternative to evolution...
> Incidentally, the order-of-magnitude decline in human life spans can be attributed to a population bottleneck caused by the Flood.
Actually, humans (and almost all other species) have far too much genetic diversity to have suffered such a radical bottleneck in the past few thousand years.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
They both serve similar purposes. Science is a tool for telling us what the physical world is. Religion is a tool for telling us what's going on in the human heart and mankind (arguably an irrational subject to begin with).
And frankly...your example sucks. ONE Religion demands faith. Many others do not (IE Buddhism) Science doesn't demand anything. At best it should be just *is*. I don't want ANYTHING demanding adherence of me. I'll make my own decisions, thank you. (And if the bullet kills me when I shoot myself because my magic +5 shield of invulnerability didn't work, that's my fault).
Specifically, three points: 1) Build models of the chemical changes that occur inside an organism (or even just a cell). 2) Look for processes of favorable mutation that rely on interlocking / synchronized adaptation. 3) Use the mathematics of statistics to determine whether these interlocking / synchronized adaptations are likely the result of chance, or fall outside the realm of chance.
An example is blood clotting - there is a very narrow range in which clotting agents prevent bleeding to death yet do not kill by thrombosis. Another example is hormone regulation. The quantities of actual hormones are exceptionally small, yet their effects are quite large.
What you are looking for is Archimedes' screw in the prairie. Not a creek in the side of a hill which moves stuff during spring runoff. You are looking for something complex that provides an advantage to some other portion of the organism, without which the organism would suffer.
To be fair, this is still one-sided research: if you find that, indeed, a biological process has irreducible complexity, you then prove intelligent design. But if you don't find that, then all you have for it is a better understanding of biological processes. ;-)
"The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
... pretending there is no agenda in such an sticker.
THe court sought through it and rightly smacked the idea down as the offensive nonsense it clearly is.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
No, most theories do not become laws. Laws must be provable mathematically. While in most other areas (law, history, etc) proof can be taken to mean a preponderance of evidence, thats not the case in science. The sort of topics addressed by theories generally contain so many variables that we are unlikely to ever be able to understand them fully enough to formulate a mathematical proof - just a limited, mathematical model.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Most posts seem to bash special creationism, not Christianity. Last I checked, they were different things. Or did I miss the memo?
As many, many posts have stated, faith and science are complementary, not congruent. One describes the workings of the universe; the other gives reason to our existence within the universe.
Science is merely an epistomology, a method of discovering truths. We are not perfect at it, as we are human and completely fallable. We often think one thing is true, only to learn later that we were wrong. And unfortunately, some cling to disproved beliefs in the face of contrary evidence.
But... See, that's where science is strongest. It is possible to gather contrary evidence and disprove an hypothesis. Sometimes even theories are disproved or addended, such as Newton's Laws
(which was superceded by relativity and quantum mechanics in the extremely small cases of size, or very great speed).
The problem with faith when used to interpret the mechanics of the universe is simple: you cannot disprove anything, since all assertions are taken on... faith.
Yes, I am aware of Micheal Behe and his ilk. They have the uncanny knack of ignoring all contrary evidence. They seem to cherry-pick only the evidence they desire, like actors on a stage, and frame their hypothesis on a stage with a single spotlight. And like the actors in a play, the script is worked out beforehand.
Their arguments, although they wear the trappings of science, lack science's primary strength: they are not disprovable. There is no way to disprove that some Divine Hand is not directing the play. And so, when they make assertions that God has created us (ignore those pesky bones in the earth), they are presenting not science, but faith in a play about fake science.
That is why so many here are strongly vocal against those that would subvert true knowledge for a faith-based political agenda. We speak out not against the faith, but against those that would promote willful ignorance under the banner of faith.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
It has nothing to do with the typical conversational use of the word, along the lines of "in theory, pigs could fly, if only...".
There is no theory of common descent that does not include humans.
So? That wasn't my point. My point is that you say we can't have observed the evolution from human-precursor to human, and I say no but we can observe something very similar happening with other species. Pre-human -> human is theory, but some species -> some new species is not it is observed fact. It is possible that humans came about through some other mechanism, but the mechanism we know and have observed explains it just fine.
In other words, change in species over time isn't a theory, whether it specifically resulted in humans from a common ancestor is.
Most of these events are actually the formation of sub-species. At this point, this argument becomes one of semantics; what is a species?
Generally considered to be separate populations which cannot interbreed and produce fertile young. Horses and donkeys are different species because their offspring, the mule, is sterile. Things are tougher in the world of asexual reproduction.
Rather than argue along that line, I will point out that my original statement has not been negated by your statement, because you are not addressing common descent, but only subsequent speciation. It remains unknown whether all forms of life evolved from a common ancestor, though that is the claim of the theory of common descent.
That's rather confusing... You're saying we know that species can diversify into different species now, we're just not sure if that actually happened in the past? Again I'm willing to accept common ancestry as a theory, but it sounds like you're suggesting that while speciation exists now it might not have in the past even though that would explain where all the species came from.
It is a fact that one type of bird has been observed to give rise to another, slightly different type of bird. This is not the same thing as common descent, and it remains unproven whether common descent is even possible, much less whether it actually occurred.
Fine. You accept, then, that the fundamental mechanism by which evolution is theorized to occur -- random mutation and environmental pressure -- can give rise to new adaptations and new species, correct? You understand that the fossil record includes many middle grounds between species, including between homo sapiens and apes. Okay, we don't know that they are middle grounds, but it is consistent with observed speciation. Our bodies have traits very similar to apes, very similar to all mammals, very similar to reptiles. Our eyes have a crazily inefficient design that is shared by huge swaths of creatures from mammals to birds to amphibians, while cephalopods have a different design. Birds have many common traits in common with dinosaurs -- are you telling me you don't think it's possible one could have evolved into the other, despite the existence of archeopteryx? Is our vestigal appendix not a clue?
Actually, now you have me interested. What is your theory for how all of these species from wildly different phylums and classes of animals have such similar featurs -- livers, pancreas, appendix, thyroid gland, the ordering of layers of blood vessels, ganglia, neurons, and photo receptors in the eye -- without common ancestry? If there is no common ancestor between humans, apes, and monitor lizards then why do our brains, apes' brains, and monitor lizards' brains share common features?
That would be a sloppy way of thinking in other branches of science; it is not sufficient to claim that a theory must be accepted as an historical fact simply because no one has produced an alternative theory. Claiming that observed examples of speciation (or sub-speciation) demonstrates the process that led to humans is an argument by a hyper-extended analogy.
I didn't say you had to accept it as historical fact; I am saying it is a theory. The only thing I'm saying is fact is speciation, which we have obser
The enemies of Democracy are
No. No, it isn't... really can't say any more than that.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Thankfully you got tired of typing, otherwise you would have continued with all the half assed alleged "holes" in evolutionary theory.
As time passes those "holes" are firmly closed, but there will always be people too blinded to accept scientific gained knowledge if it contradicts the teachings given down to them by Asian sheep or camel herders....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I'll give the answer first: The answer is DNA.
When you really examine the evidence for macro-evolution, it is rather thin. So many suppositions have been made based upon single fragments of skeletons that it really becomes almost a belief system in and of itself. If that is true, then who is to say that one belief system has merit over another? People compare theories of evolution with theories of gravity or even relativity, but the level of experimental proof for evolution as the origin of species is virtually non-existent. On the other hand, one can design and perform experiments that show other scientific theories to be true to the extent of our scientific perceptions.
That's where DNA comes in. DNA has been shown to be the basis of all life as we know it. One can do DNA experiments as simple as the level of a 4th grader, all the way up to the multiple-PhD bio-engineer. It doesn't challenge religion, and it meets any scientific scrutiny one could throw at it.
So, teach DNA as the basis of biology!
What was that I typed a little while ago? People ridicule that which they don't understand and that which they fear. Amazingly predictable.
...but with a rapid 1500 comments so far, they sure do understand thier audience.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Interesting point regarding blind acceptance of other people's theories, it is a good thing to encourage people to think for themselves.
However, the theory of evolution is a self contained 'explaination' for how we came to exist and how the world is the way it is, while any religious 'explaination' simply replaces the problem of 'where did we come from?' with 'where did god come from?'.
Also, religion is not subject to the same level of criticism and argument as scientific theory. Any attempt to analyse a religion quickly runs into "Because God says so, and He is God so there!" styles of response. Sometimes followed by riots, fisticuffs, wars etc.
My final observation is that the supreme being seems to require more donations from me than I would expect from the creator of the universe.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Try this on for size: Scientists don't dream of telling people what church they can worship at, or what prayers they may say. If people choose not to reap the fruits of scientific progress, more power to them (I will grant that Christian Scientists who want to let their kids die are an exception here).
But Christians, based on a belief that God despises certain things, tell gay people they can't marry, scientists that they don't get to work with embryos, and teens that they can't watch porn.
Scientists point to the global warming problem, which will bring untold harm on our descendants if left unchecked. But since it's possible that the increase in temperature is just a fluke (just like it's possible that God arranged for animals to appear in the order they did), the leader of the free world decides it's better to give polluters free rein and bring in some more revenue.
I wouldn't mind if there were a colony on the Moon I could go off to, and leave Christians and their lackeys to make the world into whatever they want. But I'm stuck here, so I try to help people realize that viewpoints like yours are so much fruitless BS.
And don't worry; I don't lose sleep worrying if there's a lake of fire waiting for me at the bitter end.
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
Human chromosome 2 looks like chimp 2q and 2p fused together. more details here.
Okay, time for a very lengthy comment that no one will read, AND that will be modded down because I'm not an evolutionist (after all, if you don't believe that all of existence happened at random, you're a nutty Bible-thumper who can't think, right?).
First of all, the question that ought to be raised by this story isn't a scientific one. It's actually a question of constitutionality. If you read the article, you would see that the judge declared the stickers unconstitutional because "By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories."
The mere fact that you believe creationists are stupid does not mean you should cheer every time creationism is knocked as a theory of origin. If the courts decide now that creationism should be censored all the time, imagine how you'll feel if Bush gets the appointees he'd like for the Supreme Court, and they make the opposite decision twenty-three years down the road...
That aside, let's look at the constitutionality issue.
Essentially, the judge said this: By not presenting evolution as fact, the school district was supporting creationism as a theory of origin. Further, the judge reasons, a school district supporting creationism as a theory of origin is breaking the separation of church and state.
The question, then, is, "Is the judge's analysis correct?"
Putting a disclaimer on one theory does not necessarily imply that you agree with an opposing theory. The image of the disclaimer shown in the article reads: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
Yep, that definitely states that evolution is a theory, not a fact. However, it doesn't indicate that there are any facts about the origin of living things, nor does it even indicate that the suppliers of the textbook (that is, the school district) thinks there's a better theory. All it states is that evolution is a theory, not a fact.
denigrate
tr.v. denigrated, denigrating, denigrates
1. To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame. 2. To disparage; belittle: The critics have denigrated our efforts.
As far as I can tell, that does not 'denigrate' evolution as a theory of origins. Nowhere does this sticker say, "Evolution is probably wrong," or "Evolution is a bad theory." It just says that evolution is not proven to be the way life originated in our universe/on our planet. That may or may not be a true statement; I haven't addressed that question yet. But, that is what the disclaimer says.
It also says to consider the material with an open mind, and to analyze it critically. We'd all agree that this is the way to view a mathematical proof, or a proof of correctness for an algorithm. I think the average Slashdotter would definitely say that one should do this when examining religious material, such as the Bible, the Qu'ran, or perhaps the Bhagavad Gita.
So why would it be wrong to give this advice to students who are studying theories of origin? Shouldn't every decision we make be based on careful thought and analysis?
If evolution is so solidly proven to be true, and so obviously the only valid view, then advising students to come to the material on evolution analytically and with an open mind will help evolution out, if anything. A few of those "fundamentalist right-wing idiots" may just take the advice, see how the massive preponderance of the evidence supports evolution, and change their beliefs.
If, after having thought about evolution analytically, students decide they don't believe in it, one can only say, "Well, they're individuals, and they have the right to believe what they like."
We
"Oh, I like geeks way better than I like humans." - Mari Sarris
So among silly people who answer badly-worded questionaires, there's a high percentage who give an ambiguous answer which can be misinterpreted to mean whatever the hell you want. I applaud reservedly. Congratulations.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
You bring up a VERY good point. Why, of the subset of all scientific theories do they focus on evolution, and not much else? Take for example the inverse square force between two charges. It's taught in schools as fact that F~(r^-2), but only in graduate study of E&M (Jackson) was it mentioned that the best experiments (which people occasionally re-do when they have sensors that can improve on the results) have only limited it to something like r^(-n) where n=2.0000000+/- 0.0000003 (I'm making up these numbers, but IIRC they're not that far off).
make world, not war
"The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
Those idealist sticker writers are up to it again!
The rest of the sticker...
Individual results may vary. The material may be paraphrased by the teacher and made into a transparency for happy fun copy-over time. Students will be assigned reading, but it's likely that the book will never be opened. Key words will be memorized by the students for the exam, after which time they will be promptly forgotten by most, aside from trivia junkies and the two future science majors of the class.
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
No, what these people are clinging desperately to is the Adam and Eve creation story. Why? I think it's because they can't bear the thought that we're descended from lower life forms. To them, that thought is terrifying because they think it diminishes what we are.
it's not even that complicated. they cling to adam and eve because if that part isn't true, then the old testament loses its integrity. adam and eve (in this instance) are necessary for a belief in the seamless worldview that the bible provides. the bible doesn't account for itself possibly being wrong, so what are its practicioners to do? when they see a tear in their worldview forming, they rush to sew it up.
"sew, sew like the wind!"
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
.... but here you are talking about biochemistry and the fossil record, and more shamefully, asking about predictions based in evolutionary theory.
Just for starters:
Darwin's moth. This appeared in National Geographic magazine a few months ago.
I better refer you to a better explanation that puts your claims to shame
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
From there to specialization, and the formation of lenses to make them more acute, is just a matter of gradual steps. Hence one might well say 1 (neurons) + 1 (specialization) = 2 (eyes), without starting at a highly improbable 2.
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
Religion is an organized set of believes (sic). Science falls into this category.
This shows your ignorance of the scientific method.
There are really two things meant by "science."
The common meaning of "science" is the body of knowledge gained by observation, logic, and experimentation as required by the scientific method.
The most fundamental meaning refers to the scientific method itself, which is an epistomology used to learn about the workings of the universe. This epistomology is based on two human abilities: the ability to observe, and the ability to organize observed information logically.
The absolute most important aspect of the scientific method is simply this: an hypothesis must be disprovable. It's as simple as that. When I make a statement of hypothesis, people must have the ability to make further observations that may disprove that statement. So, I can say things like, "If the theory of evolution by natural selection is correct, we should see a remarkable amount of speciation after a long-term cataclysmic event such as an ice age." This is one of the many ways that the theory of evolution by natural selection could be disproved.
And that is the key.
There is no way to say, "If the theory of God is correct, the believers should lead longer, healthier lives than non-believers, because God favors them." Oh, I could say it all right, but if it turns out to not be the case (which it isn't), does it disprove the Theory of God? In fact, I claim that there is no such statement of prediction that can be made against any religious belief.
That's why it's called "faith."
Further, I claim that every single scientific hypothesis and theory can be disproved. I'm not saying that they will be disproved; many are correct, and so no evidence exists contrary to the statements of prediction made by those hypothesis and theories. But, for every one, you can design a test that will discover (or not discover, if the theory is wrong) new information predicted by the theory or hypothesis.
Science is not a religion, no matter how many people raise their voices in halleluiah chorus. Religion is not a science, either. They both have their place, and stepping on each other's toes is not one of them.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
From what I remember of high school science, the first chapter of the text was always titled "What is Science?", and discussed how all scientific theories are just hypotheses which explain a whole bunch of observations. The repetition sort of annoyed me at the time, but judging from the state of science education in America today, more of it may be needed.
Ok so we replace the stickers with ones that say
Remember - creationism is only a theory and not a fact. No deity has ever been proven to exist.
And lets see how long those last.
This is science class, after all, so why don't we teach scientific theories? There are well-defined criteria for scientific theories.
Then, we can teach religious theories in... oh, say, religion class. Or church.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
What was that classic saying? "Old people tend to be more religious because they're cramming for the final exam." Besides, what does one person's opinion matter?
Look at the phylogenetic tree (the species which have evolved from a common ancestor). Something that might pose a problem to current evolution theory, would be if a fossil is ever discovered of an animal type with features that were evolved later in different branches from the common ancestor. Like a mammal with feathers or some such. There are other examples but I'm too tired to look for them.
The laws we have are based on our theory of government and rights. If you believe that human rights come from sets of people, then you will produce very different laws than if you believe that human rights come from God.
:)
Maybe, maybe not. We as a country (I am assuming you are American) got our "murder is bad" belief from Christian tradition. This same belief can be derived (and has been) from other sources long before Christianity existed. Whether those previous cultures came to that conclusion from the Sun God or Tree God or just plain logic seems rather arbitrary to me. Others think that such laws can be derived on a purely logical basis, simply by looking at what helps and what hurts society. I won't advocate that any one of these are correct - but neither would I say that Christianity is the only source of such laws when clearly it is not.
The implementation must derive from the foundation. If you do not understand the foundation, then you cannot completely understand the implementation.
The implementation is what it is. It can be perfectly understood regardless of one's religious background.
I believe that the preservation of our Liberty depends on the understanding of our people as to the theory behind our laws.
I agree - but I think the theory behind our laws is to not let anyone impose their beliefs on you
I don't, especially if it requires leaving the public ignorant of how we got where we are!
This is obviously the main point where we disagree. Yes, we got here because of X, but many implementations of X in the Old World were downright evil. Our founding fathers (despite being influenced by X) realized that society would benefit from not having religious beliefs imposed on its citizens. It's that simple... People are certainly free to practice X, just as they are free to practice Y. The point is that no one religous belief should be imposed on others... Such is a more advanced society than one that imposes X or Y or Z on its citizens.
Though there may be a few simular conclusions reached by various civilizations, none of them will reach all the same conclusions we hold dear, because they have different principles.
Civilizations are alike in some ways, different in others. In many ways, we have progressed. In others, we have not. But if you believe, as I do, that our society is more advanced than a theocracy, I struggle to see how you could credit our Christian tradition with that advancement, as Christian history has always been one of imperialism and expansion. There are certainly other factors at work here... Some advancements come from a different, more secular place, and I think our founding fathers respected this.
Wouldn't it be horrible to suffer under unjust laws? Does that mean that all laws should be disbanded?
Your logic does not follow, so I have to ignore the rest of your comment in this section. Yes, it is horrible to suffer unjust laws, and no, that of course does not mean all laws should be disbanded. That is some faulty logic if I have ever seen any...
We should also fight attempts to force a religious vacuum. Morality and law cannot exist in such a vacuum, as they are the expression of religious belief.
We do not exist in a religious vacuum - we just don't want to impose religious beliefs. There is a difference. People are free to teach their children and personally practice anything they want. They can enroll their children in strictly relgious schools. What we are talking about are public schools - the schools that are, in theory, for everyone. If you don't understand this concept, just try a simple reversal. What if your kid was being taught Buddhist beliefs in a public school? I know enough history to know that the atrocities committed by various branches of Christianity were opposed by other branches of Christianity. Even in Roman Catholicism, there were those who opposed certain practices
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
Unfortunately, your focus on contradicting me has rendered you unable to grasp the difference between a proveable statement of logic and an unproveable model of the world.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
Only if it's a deliberately and grossly incomplete "truth" done specifically for religious reasons.
"Support our Oops."
School Board puts sticker on THEIR books. It's just labeling their property.
You mean OUR books. It's a public school, it is government run, and therefore it is ultimately responsible to the people and must abide by the restrictions the people have placed on their government, specifically the Bill of Rights.
The statement on the sticker is true... so what's all the fuss about? Even the most rabid proponents of evolution still call it a theory. (As all good scientists should)
Because it says evolution, and not Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics, or Boyle's Law, or the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It doesn't say "science is based on the principle of falsifiability; a theory is accepted so long as it matches observation and discarded when experimentation shows it wrong". No, they made a point of saying that evolution is just a theory without any statement about the evidence behind it, and this was clearly politically motivated.
This quote is just silly:
By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories," U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said.
Yeah, real silly. Except that you, me, the Judge, the School Board, and the 2000 parents who complained all know that it is true.
The enemies of Democracy are
The judge recognized that singling out evolution for the "theory, not fact" treatment was prejudicial to it. Gravitation is a theory, not a fact, but it wasn't noted as a sticker on the front, which makes evolution appear more speculative and hypothetical, when in fact the basics of evolution are as solid as any other "theory, not fact".
The judge recognized the sticker as a subtle play on the common misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is, and rightly quashed it.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Using technical definitions, god's existence is not a theory. It's a myth. You have to use a word that's technically correct, but sounds more judgemental than it actually is.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
If secular humanism only attacked fundamentalist Christianity, I might be inclined to think you are correct.
No, I'm entirely correct that the evolution-based attack only exists because of the fundamentalist creationism viewpoint. If the fundies had gotten on board with scientific reality like most other branches of Christianity, we would almost certainly not be having this conversation today.
However, I am well aware of the fact that Christianity in general is attacked, whether by extension of our connection to the fundies, or for other reasons. It's human nature to generalize that way, and I'm not claiming the attackers are better in any way. But I'm not going to pretend that I'm unaware that a lot of the attacks are brought on by ourselves.
The anti-Christians proceed by removing reference to God in all aspects of public life, not just in the classroom or in discussions of biology. Hence, God is not to be mentioned in government; the Ten Commandments are not to be allowed in courthouses (despite the fact that it is one of the foundational documents of our civilization); presidents are not to be given an oath of office that references God or uses a Bible; the Pledge of Allegiance is not to mention God; and so forth.
You're confusing public life with government. Sorry, but all of those examples are not just reasonable but necessary. Religion and politics should not mix. Separation of Church and State is necessary for a free society in which religion can flourish -- or do you not understand that a the crossing of religion and government for so many years is part of why there have been general backlashes against Christianity since the Renaissance? Fleeing from government-specified religion was part of how our nation was born! The Pledge is a great example. It did not contain the words "under God" when it was originally written by a Baptist minister. The words were added in the 50s by a Congress that wanted to make some gesture against the atheist Soviet state. Religion and cold war politics crossing is not in any way a good thing. Giving the people the right to choose whether they pay homage to (a particular) God is.
The enemies of Democracy are
Perhaps the problem is that, since modern science has been around a while, it is now ingrained in academia, and viewed, especially by school boards, as "This is the way things are." Rather, if science is treated as an investigation, a solving of mysteries, the problem may not be so pronounced.
If a class is taught from the point of view of, "Oh dear, look at all these different animals! How on earth did they all come to be? Here is a set of ideas that have been proposed by people who know a lot about such things, and they've provided evidence. Therefore, it's worth us looking into. Wow, their rules seem to explain things quite well, as far as we can tell", then the spirit of science is preserved.
However, in our modernist society, we cling to science's supposed ability to prove everything HERE AND NOW, to tell us the one and only way that things are. Perhaps it stems from ancient thought, a la the royalty in Galileo's time, where it was ingrained into the populace that this is THE WAY THINGS ARE, and there exists such a way things are that we are completely positive about.
If our society was willing to accept concepts of "we don't know for absolute sure, but this one set of rules seems to fit pretty darn well, so that's what we're going with" and not consider it a BAD thing, I think we'd all be a lot better off.
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
The legal system isn't intended to be anti-Christian, either, but the enemies of Christianity certainly try to force that use!
I cannot speak for all atheists or non-christions (althogh i am sure that these are the beliefs of the ACLU) as there are a lot of people out there, and it pains me to see some of the anti-religious posts on this and other boards, and i doubt that you would make excuses for those who think that everyone should be forced to convert. however, i can tell you, as someone who supports the kinds of actions you are misrepresenting that i would never seak to take away a person's right to express their own opinions or their own religion (nor would i seak to keep them from practicing that religion).
I think that there is mostly a miscommunication between parts of soceity that make for a very heated culture war. one of the man miscommunications involves the issue of seperation of chuch and state. i (and i've heard members of the much hated ACLU make simular statements - after i formed my opinions btw) believe people are not really free to choose and excersize their religion when the state officially endorses or denounces any religion (including atheism.) The things that are challenged, if you notice are cases where shcools, teachers, or laws attempt to force religion on people. Just so you know, the ACLU has sued over students being disiplined for excercising their right to express their religoin.
the real culture war, as i see it (between moderates) is about where the line is drawn as far as the goverment forcing religion on the people (or denouncing it). the atheists/non-christions tend to believe the line has already been crossed, and that forcing people to acknowldge the existance of any god/goddess/deity crosses that line (it would also be crossing that line to force people to deny the excistance of any god/goddess/deity).
it is my opinion that these stickers constituted an attempt to discredit a scientific theory by way of belittling it (the word ONLY is the really objectionable wording, although, if the district bought decent books, evolotion should have been presented as a theory, and reminding people of that is, itself an attempt to belittle the already stated theory). furthermore, these stickers, being implimented by a branch of the goverment, were an attempt by the goverment to influence peoples' religion.
There's no such thing as a stupid question, but there sure are a lot of inquisitive idiots.
Well how about a warning sticker on all christian textbooks that explains that the god in the bible was in fact made up by the old hebrews?
The old hebrews din nothing but take stories from older religions and piecing them together to make a religion of their own.
For those interested an interesting article can be found here
The belief in a biblical god is an ignorant one
The parents are closer than the judge to what? The constitution?
Having a concentration of close-minded, biased parents doesn't mean that we should cater to their desires. That would be akin to keeping slavery in the south, but not the north, or allowing hitler to kill the jews in Germany but not anywhere else.
"If the textbook does a good job of exploring evolution as a biological principle and the potential role of evolution in bringing life about, then it probably should not need the label."
The theory of evolution doesn't say how life was created, it says how life changes once it exists.
"the judge should not be judging ethical issues"
The judge isn't judging ethical issues, he's judging the illegal actions of of a public group that affects the education system. That's his job.
"I can't see how anyone would be intimidated by that label"
Stating that a theory is not a fact is in every science text book, it's in the glossary with all the other scientific definitions. Putting a label specifically to target evolution, is intended to intimidate. For example, teaching kids that having promiscious sex could lead to disease is a good thing to say. Saying "Don't have sex with TIffany because she could have sexual diseases." is a different story.
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
... that I despair about humanity. If somebody moderately technologically capable to use a computer and a web browser can be so tremendosuly ignorant, what hope is there for the masses or the willfully ignorant people?
People seeing evolution happening? Epidemiologists. The measure mutations of viruses and bacteria in home many of there are per unit of time. The HIV that causes AIDS has mutated in several strains since it was first discovered. Many diseases are becoming resistent to our treatments in a typical Darwinian example of suvival of the fittest.
Intermediate forms? Google for "whale evolution". You will deny all what you find, and will argue that all the clearly related beasts have nothing to do with each other. Well, many people insisted that the Earth was the center of the universe, so rest in the comfort of knowing that ignorance is not a solitary place to be.
Your questions about dating are preposterous. Carbon dating is based in measurable physical facts, they did not invent it ouf of thin air. The rate of change of mythocondrial DNA came to confirm this. To keep harping at this is beyonf comprehension.
I leave it here, it is frankly depressing to find every time this issues comes along people using the same old, disproved crutches.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
ID fails to address specifics, but what it does point out is that the complexity of certain biological systems cannot always reasonably be explained by evoluation, as evoluation should choose the _simplest_ mechanisms to accomplish a goal.
Uhm... there is no choice. Per the theory, natural selection works on the phenotypes that are available. Within a given population, there is divergence of phenotypes. This divergence is the raw materials which power the engine of evolution. There is no "choice," nor is evolution directed. We are not evolving toward some goal. We are not getting better. We are merely changing, as our environment pushes the phenotypes one direction or another.
How the divergence occurs is up for debate; the "classical" view of mutation is almost certianly a fringe case at the most, and genetic combination is limited to sexual reproduction or transcription errors (SEE mutations). There is a promising line of investigation into the role of viruses and bacteria in genetic recombination. It could be that we are all built of Legos, and we are merely the playground of microscopic creatures.
Intelligent Design fails the basic scientific requirement: it is not falsifiable. And, it fails the basic test of logic: it's not even necessary. It adds an element that must be taken on faith-- the "intelligence."
That, in and of itself, makes it a much more complex and unbelievable "theory" than evolution.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Your inability to read and comprehend written language must be how they convinced you to believe the absolute truth of something that is still a work in progress.
When an individual is born that contains a geneset composed of genes from both his parents, there has been no genetic change in the population. Read what I wrote. I'm talking about the gene pools of populations, not individuals.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
I agree with you completely. Your initial post discounted the possibility of creation. It can't be both ways. It can't be both possible and impossible.
At this point, I'm not sure what I was trying to express except it must have been related to the assumption that such-and-such creature was an evolution of such-and-such other creature. That implies a linkage. What I was trying to point out there isn't a way to replicate. Each premise is built on another. "Causation" was not the most appropriate word to use.
Don't you reinforce my statement? Unless you, yourself, have performed exhaustive study of all the literature and thoughts, how could you experience be considered authoritative? Think about that for a moment. It's not an attack on you. I said "wether you are aware of it or not." to which you replied "Every...I've ever seen."
That illustrates my point. Your comment starts with the presumption of evolution being valid, doesn't it? Yes, it does. I've read plenty of works by well-educatedk, highly-accomplished professionals who don't agree with the theory of evolution, not because they're subhuman dolts brainwashed by a hypnotic preacher figure but because of their analysis of facts. Your statement shows me you haven't read any of them. Does that mean they don't exist? No, it does not.
If you and I see the same phenomenon and you ascribe random chance and I ascribe intelligent design, what makes your views more valid than mine? Does my spiritual belief automatically make me incapable of scientific thought? Does it mean my beliefs are identical to those of the crackpot-of-the-month club and I'm incapable of critical thought? Does it make me a blind automatan as the attacks on me have claimed? Does it mean I'm a simpleton? Of course, not. If you think the best flavor of ice cream is vanilla and I like chocolate the best, am I a simpleton lunatic because I have a different viewpoint? No. Where the learned men of science wrong about bleeding people as a method of healing? Yes. Why is it ok for them to grow and adapt their viewpoints as discoveries and knowledge emerge yet religious people cannot? If there is a God who created the environment in which we live, he created the laws which guide it, right? Yes. Where does the idea that He wouldn't want us to discover all the little inter-relationships come from? Why can't both exist? Where does the idea that religion and science are antagonists come from? (I think it comes from ego problems but that's a whole different topic.) If only one viewpoint is possibly "correct", it is not a "theory", which, by definition, can be incorrect, it is absolutely correct. This is where it transfers into closed-minded dogma.
That's your personal bias. What you describe as acceptable practice is little more than indoctrination. You chose to NOT see inter-relations
Not sure what you mean by that, agnostic?
The reasoning of an agnostic is, I don't know all the details so maybe "God did it". Dig deeper, who created God?
All faiths have the same answer God "just is", so why can't the Universe "just be"?
You are spot on with the "fundamental problem". Probably the #1 mathematical breakthrough of the 20th century was Godel's incompletness theorem, "proof" that the "fundamental problem" will never go away.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Evolution is a theory, right, but there's a lot of evidence in favor of it and none against it so far. As soon as there's one one proof evolution theory is wrong, it'll we dropped immediately. Scientific theories need to be falsifiable (thanks to Popper).
In contrast, creation is a belief. There are no proofs whatsoever. For a belief it doesn't matter whether it's provable or not. The point is that you're believing it. And that's good, as long as you keep it for you.
However, serious problems arise when those who believe try to impose their beliefs upon others who don't. That's religious intolerance and has caused the death of millions in the past. That's why we have secular states. Those people are trying to turn back time and act at the same level as those islamic fundamentalists who persuade young people of committing suicide attacks. Both lack the most fundamental respect for others.
To blabber about creationism at work or school is like picking one's nose in public. I had a boss who would start "casual" discussions about "scientific" topics at any occasion. Now, that was a serious asshole! Once he gave me a book "about information" (I'm a software engineer and therefore interested "in information"). The book looked somehow suspicious though, and a quick googling of the author revealed his creationist background.
So, if you come across a creationist without manners, inform him of his misbehaviour, or run.
Science and religeon can coexist.
Honestly, in these forums I see so much religious ignorance that it makes me sick.
I don't agree with the sticker of course, because I believe that what Darwin observed does exist. I don't believe that man originated through evolution, but I believe that God created the earth and the things on it with a certain level of tolerance and adaptability. To do otherwise wouldn't make much sense from a scientific point of view, would it?
That's right. All those who attack the other side without any respect for their position are assholes. They both deserve to be slapped around. That doesn't mean that the religious are right or the non-religious are right, it just means that you need to treat your fellow man with respect.
I don't talk about my beliefs much, but I mentioned in passing to one of my friends something about God and he get extremely hostile towards me because I believe in Him. He was just an asshole about it, and it didn't matter whether he was right or wrong, he still shouldn't have don eit.
Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
If you examine the creationists arguments, they mostly come down to NOT WANTING TO BE RELATED TO MONKEYS.
Good Lord. So you've met my family?
Sorry about that.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
You are equating morality with religion.
Very pius and devoted male Muslims can have not one, not 2, but up to 4 wifes. This is immoral according to Christian beliefs.
So please, don come with this bullshit about needing religion to have morality, if anything having religion just muddles the waters of what is moral and what is not.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Even within species, most amino acid mutations are functionally silent. For example, there are at least 250 different amino acid mutations known in human hemoglobin, carried by more than 3% of the world's population, that have no clinical manifestation in either heterozygotic or homozygotic individuals (Bunn and Forget 1986; Voet and Voet 1995, p. 235). The phenomenon of protein functional redundancy is very general, and is observed in all known proteins and genes.
With this in mind, consider again the molecular sequences of cytochrome c. Cytochrome c is absolutely essential for life - organisms that lack it cannot live. It has been shown that the human cytochrome c protein works in yeast (a unicellular organism) that has had its own native cytochrome c gene deleted, even though yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c over 40% of the protein. [emphasis added]"
"One major consequence of the constraint of gradualism is the predicted existence of parahomology. Parahomology, as the term is used here, is similarity of structure despite difference in function. When one species branches into two species, one or both of the species may acquire new functions. Since the new species must recruit and modify preexisting structures to perform these new functions, the same structure shared by these two species will now perform a different function in each of the two species. This is parahomology. It follows that parahomologous structures have a history that should be explicable from other lines of evolutionary evidence, since derived characteristics (which is what these new functions and structures now are) have evolved from more primitive (i.e. older) structures..."
"...A stunning confirmation of these evolutionary predictions has come from an analysis of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (baker's yeast) and Caenorhabditis elegans (a worm). The genomes of both these organisms were sequenced very recently (Barrell 1996; Caenorhabditis elegans Sequencing Consortium 1998). The genes used by the yeast, a unicellular organism, are mostly genes dealing directly with core biochemical functions that all organisms must perform. From an evolutionary perspective, we would expect these genes to be ancient. Thus it was expected and shown that the worm contains a great majority of these genes. In contrast, the extra genes used by the worm, which deal with multicellularity, should be more recently evolved. Phylogenetic analysis has shown that this is exactly the case. The vast majority of extra genes in the worm appear to be directly derived from genes providing core cellular functions, in accordance with evolutionary prediction (Chervitz et al. 1998).
An even larger study of the known eukaryotic genomes has further demonstrated that parahomology is rampant in nature, and that true structural innovation is relatively rare (Rubin et al. 2000).
Of course, neutral mutations and parahomology aren't inconsistent with a designer. On the other hand,
There is almost no difference between this and the agnostic 'I don't know if god exists.' The only difference is that the 'lack of belief' part is specified. The agnostic does not believe either. For all practical purposes this is agnostic, not atheist.
This is pretty much a connotative defition of agnosticism you're using which has come about in the past few years as a way to appear hip and/or duck the argument in its entirety. Agnosticism is philosophical chic or, as I always say, agnostics are the Mac fanboys of philosophy. Please research the actual origins of agnosticism (hint: It's more than simply "I don't know"). Also, I would advise you to read the atheist manifesto and some of Sagan's works if you haven't yet.
BTW - If I'm coming across as a dick I apologize. My tank is on empty and I need some sleep.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
For natural selection:
(1) All of agriculture (imposition of human seleciton criteria to produce new strains of crops of livestock is big business)
(2) Penicillin now does approximately jack to any bacteria on the planet.
For genetic mutation:
(1) cancer: mutated genes resulting inirregualr growth patterns.
(2) Frogs in polluted areas (third legs, etc.)
For the guidance of an unseen hand spontaneously making changes to entire populations:
OK, you got me on this one... Unless the unseen hand is that of an evil bastard that enjoys twisting organisms in a way to cause them pain and suffering, and occasionally does something nice to make up for it.... hey, I think I just invented a religion!
Anyhow, though, there's your evidence. What do I win?
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Before all the Anonymous Cowards tell you to get the hell out of The States, I will be the the first European to welcome you.
Birds evolved after, and more likely from, reptiles (dinosaurs).
There were reptiles that were sea creatures as there are mammals today. It is a proven fact that whales, sea creatures, evolved much latr than fish.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but trying so stupidily to fit facts to a mythological account is an exercise on futility.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You are certainly correct about the dictionary definition of the word 'Atheist' - but that avoids the point that an overwhelming majority of people who describe themselves as atheists are also disbelievers of all kinds of 'supernatural' matters, and disbelief in religion of necessity makes you an atheist.
So what word would you recommend for someone who rejects both God and Religion if not 'Atheist'?
I'm certainly one of those people.
For believers in religions and/or gods, I find that they typically want to label me as 'Agnostic' - which suggests some measure of doubt on my part. They are a little horrified when I tell them "No - I'm quite certain that there isn't a God."
For me, God is precisely as believable as the Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause. I really, truly cannot put any more conviction into it than that. This makes it very hard to take anything that religious people say seriously. If you met an adult who fervently believed in the Tooth Fairy and modelled their life on that basis, you'd think they were a certifyable lunatic!
What I fail to understand about believers is this. If I truly believed in the existance of a being with utterly unlimited powers who could see and hear absolutely everything and who could understand everything - yet who would be prepared to accept the terrible things that happen on Earth without offering help - and (worse) condem people he regards as 'sinners' to an infinite prison sentence beyond death in the most inhumane conditions with pain and torture...would I be able to live my daily life?
To follow such a dangerous, sadistic maniac with the fervor that people do would seem impossible to me even if I believed in him. Yet to oppose such a being and risk literally infinite punishment is an unacceptable risk too. I truly don't know what I would do. Certainly, the idea of just persuing my daily life in humdrum normality making the occasional trip to church would be impossible.
Even if I could somehow rationalise the bad things that this guy permits to happen, I couldn't *possibly* risk upsetting the guy. How is it that religious people ever come even close to breaking God's rules? Yet they clearly do it all the time! I'd be terrified that I'd picked the wrong God! What the Christian God wants may be 180 degrees off what some Wikkan believer thinks is the case - the consequences of being wrong would be rather serious.
How can religious people stand to live that way? I can only imagine that they are just totally lacking in critical thinking skills...but then that's a given for someone who might just as likely believe in Santa Clause.
Welcome to my world!
www.sjbaker.org
religion is a believe, not a fact.
is _can_ cause people to stop taking medication or commit murder.
please approach religion with the greatest care and an open mind.
Privacy is terrorism.
I notice that the aithiest are no more than barbarians. the arguments posted here are shamefull and horrifying. if i had a choice between being secular and a christian i would be a christian ( i am a Soto Zen Bhudisim) i dont quite understand why there is such blind seething hatred of christianity, any real scientist or critical thinker would accept such a sticker as a healthy chalenge. science is sopose to be questioned and chalenged, a scientist should not be afraid of an oposing viewpoint. then there are also the points made about christians and muslims being crased fanatics, this is like saying that statistically men are child molestors so all men should be locked up for being actual or potential child molestors. from what i know about christianity, is is a faith based on being kind to your fellow man and living a moral life, and choosing good instead of evil. what is wrong with that. from some of the posts that i have read i dont see athiest being any better than savage animals. here is a thought, in christianity they teach you that you have a divine soul and it is your DUTY to honer that and live up to its potential. in evolution they teach you that you are nothing more than a savage animal with a big brain whos only purpose is to survive and procreate. if somebody took me back in time and showed me without a shadow of a doubt that evolution is true i would still choose to believe that i have a divine soul and my duty is to live up to its potential. i truely feel pity for athiest and evolutionist it is such a bleak existance dark and filled with hatred and animosity.
Then surely, the designing intelligence cannot have occured randomly by simple statistical probability really? No, it must have been created with intelligence.
And this intelligence-creating intelligence has to be even greater in it's power, right? Well it has to have been created by intelligent design, I'm sure. And being so great, of course it has been intelligently designed...
Lather, rinse, repeat. You can really feel the probability rising!
There's no 'on' position on the Slacker switch!
Since when does motive constitute a violation of the constitution? Is that really what you yanks have in your law?
..Build critical thinking and information assessment skills, and you'll have an intelligent person who can see for themselves that natural selection and many other facets of the theory of evolution carry a lot of support in the form of direct evidence.
IMO, preventing encouragement to think critically about something that may otherwise be presented to as indisputable, completely and comprehensible and knowable fact (to impressionable kids), is defense of dogma, and is dogmatically religious in my books.
ID has taken a lot of hits in this discussion for being dogmatic religion in disguise, but this dogmatism in favor evolution also needs to be separated from the state in favor of true critical thought, which if the evolutionists are right will lead to evolution anyway. Stooping to dogmatism is not how to beat dogmatics -- being calmly reasonable is how.
School should be about fairly presenting kids with a reasonable spectrum of information, teaching them to discern fact from theory from fiction, and letting them decide on their own.
Force-feed a kid evolution as fact, and that everything else is crackpotted brain-poison that he/she shouldn't even consider, and you'll have a zealot. You ravenous evolutionists who all seem to be modded up in this article might not having more zealots on your side (their zeal can be handy), but in the long run, zealots are not in anyone's interest and if you believe in social darwinism, will be weeded out at some point.
As grammar fascist says, this debate is such a mess, with both sides being arrogant and muddying the waters. I respect evolutionists and non-evolutionists who are cool-headed, fair, and rational, and am pretty fed up with the rest of the population. I am a Christian who stopped following the evolution vs whatever debate a long time ago, largely because whether you're an atheist, evolutionist, ID'er or creationist, this ridiculous debate has made monkeys/sinners out of a lot of people and we have a long way to evolve/find love and wisdom to become civil and reasonable.
In the end I think the chasm in schools of reason (basically physical empiricism vs personal experientialism) comes down to science vs religion, and will never be resolved until science learns all the things religion knows, or religion gets replaced by scientific knowledge (which are both the same thing, IMO.) The downsides to each approach are that science is missing out on things religion knows, ruling out having a meaningful understanding of some or a lot of things that exist, and religion is prone to believing some or a lot of extra things, which interfere with having an accurate understanding of reality.
The scientific facts speak for themselves.
Look at a chimp. Look at yourself.
Now deny we are not somehow related.
End of discussion.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Actually, the example in the parent to your post resulted in a less-diverse population. Before there were bacteria resistant to penicillin and bacteria that weren't. The latter group no longer exists. Traits don't come into existence as a result of selection pressures; pre-existing traits come into prominence in a population because of selection pressures.
Assuming that there isn't a genetic average of a cat and dog still existent (and there could be, I surely wouldn't know), I imagine that a set of circumstances came along that made it preferable to be either a cat or a dog. For instance, primitive humans might have gone out of their way to kill large ground-dwelling predators that did not form packs. I know I would. (this being hypothetical, naturally, as neither cats nor dogs existed before man developed domestication)
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
America, good decision?
Just kidding, you yanks make a bunch of good decisions, but you also make a lot of bad ones, which is of course what gets the press, and international ire.
-Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post
I believe I should be the guy that puts stickers on textbooks. My past work includes:
-realist philosophy: "This book just exists"
-anti-realist philosophy: "This book does not exist"
-home ec: "This book not edible"
-physics: "This book is not touching the table"
-gym: "Why do you have a book in this class?"
thanks, I'm here all week...
When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
.... to stop messing with Tsunamis.
Honestly, has he (because it is a he, isn't he?)nothing else better to do than to kill 200000 innocent people?
There is no posibility of reasonable discussion with you, since from the start you have thrown reason ouf of the window by stating your religious belief.
As soon as reason oposses your faith you will stick to faith, no matter what the facts could be saying.
How can a reasonable discussion be kept on such shaky grounds?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
But it gave your country (your blantant ignorance shows you more likely are USian) the power to destroy two town in japan completely.
Evolution is a theory in the same sense. Oh, and microbiologists use it in day to day research to save your fucking sorry ass from diseases like AIDS.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I mean, we have most of the people who're actually trying to figure this kind of stuff out, if we didn't place half of the country in fairy land we might be in danger of forming an intelligent society, or discovering truth, and then the rest of the world would be forced to nuke us.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
All science is theory. Even observations are theory. Let's say I imagine I observed an apple falling upwards, in clear violation of Newton's "law". Any or all of the following may be true:
1. I may be dreaming.
2. I may be on drugs.
3. I may observing an optical illusion.
4. There is no apple. Reality only exists in my mind.
5. I may be trapped in the Matrix.
6. The apple may move through some force I can't observe.
7. For some reason, gravity works differently on this apple at this time.
In science, you eliminate as many of the reasons above as possible (within reason), and if it is still wrong, you try to find a different theory which matches the observations better.
Arguably, you can never recreate the exact state of the universe at any observation, and thus you can never predict with absolute certainty either. But predictions can be proven wrong, if not true.
God can not be proven wrong. You can't argue with omnipotence. He could have created the universe 5 seconds ago, and filled it with ourselves, everything we observe and believe to have observed. That is a possiblity, regardless of all observations. But it is not a theory.
Evolution could be proven wrong. But that still would not make creationism a theory. I admit, that would have to lead to some rather exotic theories (aliens introducing new species?), but creationism could still never be one of them, because it is not a theory.
On that note, people argue whether or not atheism is a religion. It is. But here's a scientific theory:
The universe has been goverened by the same laws of nature without exception since the Big Bang.
How Big Bang came about, by God (de-ism, god snapped his fingers and went away), by nature (atheism, we don't know what, but it wasn't god) or agnosticism (we haven't got a clue) doesn't really matter. From Big Bang, that is a observable, falsifiable scientific theory against a creation myth.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It certainly seems premature to throw out a very successful theory on the basis of this evidence.
What evidence? ID proponents present irreducible complexity as if it were evidence, but it is not. IC is merely an example of a structure that we don't yet understand how it evolved.
That's not evidence. Just because we can't explain why gravity works doesn't mean it's powered by a creator.
The eye is a perfect example. We have a great evolutionary path set up for the eye, from light-sensitive spots on the backs of certain single-cell organisms (great for detecting sudden changes in ambient light, such as the shadow of a predator), to the pinhole camera of the nautilus, to the human eye, to octopus eyes (thanks, other poster in this thread).
We didn't understand them once, and creationists used them to "prove" (as "irreducibly complex") the existence of God.
To sum up, I will state once again: Our ignorance does not prove the existence of God! There. Was that loud enough? 'cause I can make it all caps if you like.
Now, when the ID folks start spouting Micheal Behe at you, you can refute them with vigor and glee.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
argghh, I think they should have left the stickers on. I know it implies for them that it's religion intruding on state school but what it actually says is nothing of the sort. "The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered" - That should be put on ALL science books - this is probably the most important thing for a scientist to do anyway and this is the only example of a science book I can remember that actually SAYS it. What it really implies is "question everything" which is sensible.
Oh, plus, everyone in western societies seems to believe that the theory of evolution is a fact so what's wrong to point out that it is a theory - my school teachers certainly didn't. Why does it get evolutionists so upset?
Oh, puhlease (see, I can use overblown melodrama, too), drop the "us scientists" vs. "you Christian idiot" insults. You know nothing of my scholastic or professional background, whatsoever.
"The purpose of a science book is to teach people the skills of prediction based on experience."
No, science books don't teach "skills of prediction", whatever that is. Well, I guess it's possible trend or actuarial analysis is taught in some advanced math classes but that's not what you meant.
You really are a small person.
Evolution doesn't say anything about the origin of living things in general. Evolution theories explain the differentation of organisms into various types, an ongoing process which continues today. You'll note that Darwin's book was called "the Origin of the Species", not "the Origin of Life".
While I find your method of "making things up, then claiming my opponent claims them" interesting, I'm afraid it doesn't prove anything.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Whoever put the stickers in the books has their own freedom of speech which the courts should not be able to take away. Yet if one of the students had written the message in pen inside a bunch of books, I'm pretty sure noone would have taken much notice.
I don't see what the big deal is. The sticker itself could have been written by a steadfast athiest scientist.
... "Euclidian geometry is only one of many possible geometries, and should be approached with an open and critical mind ..."
...")
Of course, to be fair you'd have to add the same sticker to all science books, perhaps with an additional clause as to the difference between the definitions of a law of nature and human laws. And for math and geometry
The sticker for the bible (or koran, ar whatever), now that would be more than a couple of paragraphs. ("Now this is what our father's father's father's great grand father observed, as reported throughout the chain of generations. It's up to you to judge whther there just might have been someone along the line who had some ulterior motive or agenda
yes, we have no bananas
"Pray to God, but keep rowing to shore."
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
Hiding behind calling things "theories" seems to be the lastest fad amongs anti-intellectuals. Yes, evolution is a theory. It happens to be a very-well supported theory, which also makes it as much a fact as most of the other pieces of knowledge we rely on every day.
Contrast that with assertions by the political right, like "homsexuality destroys families" or "guns defend our freedoms" or "tax cuts for the rich strengthen the economy". Those are also theories, albeit poorly formulated ones, and ones that are completely lacking any factual support.
What matters is not whether something started out as a theory, what matters is whether it is well supported by observation and fact. And evolution is well-supported by observation and fact, unlike most of the drivel coming out of the political right or the religious nuts.
Don't you understand that the Holy Religion of the Invisible Pink Elephants, like all religions, is based on faith and logic? We have faith they are pink and we logically know they are invisible because we can't see them.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
You truly believe Christians are incapable of understanding science?
You're a bigot.
Some of my bestest friends are tooth-fairies....
You insensitive Clod!!!!
bah!*@%!
WKJ: Maybe, maybe not.
There isn't as "maybe" to it; change the foundation and you change the results.
We as a country (I am assuming you are American) got our "murder is bad" belief from Christian tradition. This same belief can be derived (and has been) from other sources long before Christianity existed. Whether those previous cultures came to that conclusion from the Sun God or Tree God or just plain logic seems rather arbitrary to me.
OK, choose the most trivial single issue within a system that you can and pretend that this shows that different foundations may result in identical systems, but you are blinding yourself to what should be obvious. For one thing, who is defining murder? Is it murder to send a widow to be burned to death, simply because her husband has died? But, don't let obvious differences in systems mislead you into thinking that different foundations necessarily produce different systems!
Others think that such laws can be derived on a purely logical basis, simply by looking at what helps and what hurts society.
Again, this will result in different expressions of what is murder. For one thing, it places the needs of society above individual human rights.
I won't advocate that any one of these are correct - but neither would I say that Christianity is the only source of such laws when clearly it is not.
And I will say again, that you will not understand our legal system if you do not understand our philosophical foundation, which includes Christianity. You appear to be determined to avoid reaching that conclusion at all costs.
The implementation must derive from the foundation. If you do not understand the foundation, then you cannot completely understand the implementation.
The implementation is what it is. It can be perfectly understood regardless of one's religious background.
No, that results in mechanical recitation. It results in judges who consider the Constitution to be a "living document" that is amenable to modern ideas, instead of being interpreted based on original intent. It results in a public that does not understand what its rights and duties are, and so ultimately loses access to their rights.
Pooua: I believe that the preservation of our Liberty depends on the understanding of our people as to the theory behind our laws.
I agree - but I think the theory behind our laws is to not let anyone impose their beliefs on you :)
That should not mean preventing the state from admitting that our laws are based on our religious foundation, or explaining the role that Christianity has in our nation's history, or in making laws that are religiously-informed.
Pooua: I don't, especially if it requires leaving the public ignorant of how we got where we are!
This is obviously the main point where we disagree. Yes, we got here because of X, but many implementations of X in the Old World were downright evil. Our founding fathers (despite being influenced by X) realized that society would benefit from not having religious beliefs imposed on its citizens.
One of your problems is that you don't know our religious foundations, and so you don't understand our history or our culture. You don't realize that the Founding Fathers of the U.S. frequently used government tools to advance Christianity, including the distribution of Bibles and the making of laws. You may not even realize the reason slavery is now illegal in the world is that evangelical Christian organizations made it a prime issue.
It's that simple... People are certainly free to practice X, just as they are free to practice Y. The point is that no one religous belief should be i
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.
Source: Many sources here...
Karma? Sorry, i don't believe in superstition. http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz
As for evolution, it is often used not just as a theory, but to "prove" God does not exist, we are just slightly improved MONKEYS (you included!) etc.etc.etc....
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong...
1. Evolution is neutral. It gets as far as it can to do a reasonable job. Otherwise, for example, we would have MUCH better eyes than we have. Octopodi (octopus pl.) have better functioning eyes than do we. In other words,there is no notion of improvement in the ToE.
2. Evolution implies we and any other currently existing animal had a common ancestor. We are not improved monkeys (or apes or horses etc.)
3. The ToE makes no assumptions about the existence/non-existence of God. It is a theory about evolution. If you wish to hypothesize a 'starting line' God, then the ToE does not stop you from doing so.
4. To me, the notion of a soul is illogical and contradictory but this has nothing to do with the ToE.
5. Morality has nothing to do with the ToE. Two sub-points: a. From a secular point of view, you can argue that, as life is the one and only thing you own in the brief moment of its existence, this is the one thing you truly respect. b. The ToE makes no assumptions about free will. Looking at an ant, however, it is easy to argue that its genes and environment determine its behaviour precisely. Anything 'immoral' that an ant performs is then excusable. For us humans, of course, it is far more tricky but the ToE makes no pronouncements on that subject.
6. As to a blind mechanism (ie no creator) causing an evolutionary process, I can recommend no better book than: 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Richard Dawkins.
Did he inhale?
Also, religion is not subject to the same level of criticism and argument as scientific theory.
This fact, and the fact that the loudest people supposedly on the side of science rarely take advantage of it, was more or less the point of my post. This is not so much a response to evolution, either, as much as the people saying "yay for evolution, down with religion" (I paraphrased there) because they're talking about perhaps five completely unrelated things. I guess Bertrand Russell said what I meant to say best with the words, "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." Bearing in mind that religious fanatics aren't the only kind of fanatics out there.
`which fortune`
And if someone does... you didn't need them anyway.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
So a kook philosopher who wrote at least one book on "paraphysical" events came to the conclusion that god exists because he (Flew) can't comprehend the complexity of DNA? Stop the presses!
This is the only "scientific evidence" presented in the several google links I followed.
But that's the point. If you cannot prove/disprove the existence of gods, why invent such a notion? To atheists, the whole clutter of contradictions and hypothesizing as a result of these inventions is ridiculous. Keep it simple.
Did he inhale?
'nuff said
Maybe it's what the school board was really after. Has anyone explored that option yet?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Flew has looked at evidence for many years and has now concluded that life cannot come from non-life.
... ask an evolutionist HOW the first cell came into being. As far as I can tell, this is a total mystery to those who attend the Origin of Life conferences and is exactly the reason the "Intelligent Design" is making such inroads. ID and people like Flew are just giving creationists more ammunition.
That is the point
Karma? Sorry, i don't believe in superstition. http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz
alternative theories, including creationism might possibly explain.
Except creationism isn't a threory, it never can be a theory, it cannot be tested, to qualify as a theory it must be a tested hypothisis.
No, Newton's Laws of Motion match data at a given scale. At smaller scales, Quantum Mechanics rule. At larger scales (i.e., intergalactic distances), we're still not sure, but assuming that Newtonian mechanics scales up when it does not also scale down is probably not a safe assumption...
In my QM class, we talked about the deBroglie wavelength of a human-sized object. it's 10^-38 meters or something. Sure, there is a probability that you or I could walk through a wall via quantum tunnelling. But it is *exceedingly* small.
but this category presumably includes the official Roman Catholic view,
This is a rather recent view by the RCC, btw.
A cynic would see that it's just another "embrace-and-extend" action by the Pope to help keep Catholicism slightly relevant by more and more people.
...a framework that best fits with the available evidence - Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, fits very well, but was superceded by Einstein's relativity which fits just ever so slightly better. There are no 'facts' in science at all, in this sense, just theories that best fit the observations.
You can never prove something as unquestionably true (a 'fact') as new observations could come along later; you can however prove theories to be false if they don't fit with the observations (or more accurately, show them to be approximations - Newtonian physics is still immensely useful.)
The problem here is that most people reading this sticker on the cover will not have been introduced to this nature of the word 'theory' in the scientific sense, but in the more colloquial sense - a theory police are working on in an investigation for example. E.g. 'something that could very well be wrong'.
A more honest and correct sticker would not single out evolution as somehow special among scientific theories; instead they could have created a chapter that explained scientific method, the status of the word 'theory' in science, and how science differs from other human endeavours, including religion.
In particular it could explain why science tends to limit itself to statements that *can be falsified* by new observations, as that seems to be the crux of the conflict (the *literal* reading of Genesis being falsifiable, and most people would say, falsified.)
Confirmed christians everywhere else (other than that less than 1% recessive demegraphic) simply accept creationism at the way god did it. Just go ask any mainstream bishop in Europe if there's any conflict between their christian beliefs & evolution. Whether Roman catholic, Eastern-rite catholic, Russian Orthadox, Greek Orthadox, Lutheran, Dutch Reformed, Anglican/CoE/W/I, Presbytarian/CoS, etc, etc. odds on to a large bloody degree the response will be something like "no my child, why should there be? Our church sees nothing wrong with members accepting evolution, after who's to say the lord did't simply use evolution as his method to create diversity?"
Fact is the US is the only nation on the planet where a significant percentage of it's christian population see a conflict between evolution & their christian beliefs (well except for some tiny Pacific Islands where 7th Day Adventists, the mormans & Victorian era English congregational missionaries 'n similar made significant inroads)
Confirmed christians everywhere else (well other than that less than 1% recessive demegraphic) simply accept creationism at the way god did it. Just go ask any mainstream bishop in Europe if there's any conflict between their christian beliefs & evolution. Whether Roman catholic, Eastern-rite catholic, Russian Orthadox, Greek Orthadox, Lutheran, Dutch Reformed, Anglican/CoE/W/I, Presbytarian/CoS, etc, etc. odds on to a large bloody degree the response will be something like "no my child, why should there be? Our church sees nothing wrong with members accepting evolution, after who's to say the lord did't simply use evolution as his method to create diversity?"
Really the US is the only nation on the planet where a significant percentage of it's christian population see a conflict between evolution & their christian beliefs (well except for some tiny Pacific Islands where 7th Day Adventists, the mormans & Victorian era English congregational missionaries 'n similar made significant inroads)
Evolutionary biology is not concerned with how the first cell came into being. It makes predictions (very accurate ones, at that) about evolving species, and doesn't pretend to explain the origin of life.
I haven't asked any scientists in the field about it, but I don't suspect they're too worried about it either. See my earlier post on self-organizing systems.
Frankly, I find even this abhorrent; it kinda gives science a hidden, all-pervasive, "divine" message, if you will, something that's against the scientific spirit of enquiry. It's also a crazy back-handed way of "validating" Hindu mythology in pseudo-scientific terms, something that I think my modes of spirituality can do without.
Then there's also this small problem of a pig being closer to humans in evolutionary terms (?) than a lion, which of course kinda screws up the concept in real, logical terms.
More than mere navel gazing.
There is a large difference. Gravity is accepted by probably about 99.9999999999% of the world.
The only people who really understand gravity are second grade teachers. Newton had some pretty messed up ideas about it, and they all come from his definition of distance. Distance is not really a tangible thing, so defining everything relitive to it is a very bad idea.
Looking at expansion theory, you can start all over, forget everything newton said, and rebuild it all on the basis that gravity is a pushing force, not a pulling force. Some things work better, but like with any theory, there are just as many holes as its alternate.
Point being that even top physicists do not understand gravity, so you really should not say that it is something that we agree upon or understand.
I learned creationism in my high school biology class, and we learned evolution, and a few other things.
I think expansion theory should be taught in physics classrooms along side with the classical pulling interpretation. The thing I always hated about physics is that physics books tend to teach everything as fact, when noone really knows what is going on.
Mutations are rare and usually sterile...
This is too simplistic a statement. Mutations as seen in the general population are rare. Other types of mutation (point mutation, indels etc.) are relatively frequent but there are mechanisms to mitigate these mutations. In fact it is estimated that approx. that every new human cell contains some 120 new mutations. But these mutations have little effect because of repeated DNA sections, junk DNA etc.etc.
Not all are sterile, of course. In fact, in just a short time, beneficial mutations can be seen.
Did he inhale?
evolution as fact, and that everything else is crackpotted brain-poison that he/she shouldn't even consider
Let's teach them the sky is yellow, the Canadians are Red Communists, and that Walter Cronkite is, in fact, the reincarnation of John Wilkes Booth, who assasinated Harry Truman at the Battle of Antietam.
Why ruin their minds with any other facts? It might make them into a zealot!
.sig: Now legally binding!
Catholic Church: The World Is Flat! Galileo: No It's round. Catholic Church: Flat! Galileo: Round. Catholic Church: Die Sinner! Galieo: IT BURNS!!! Slashdotters: Evolution Is Fact! Other: No Its a Theory Slashdotters: Fact! Other: You Don't Have 100% proof Slashdotters: Die Troll! Other: My Karma It Burns!
Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
Lay off the bong buddy. It's turning you into a troll !!!
cL0h
Are you going to announce that Charlie's pangenes have finally been discovered, or are we going to see "ignoramy recapitulates talkoriginy" replayed for the thousandth time?
We wait with 'bated breath. (-:
Other than that massive and unsupported axiomatic assumption, the reasoning in your post was sound. Sadly, real life doesn't work that way. Neither biological evolution as a mechanism for improvement of any species, nor chemical evolution as a mechanism for starting one or more first species, has yet been proven, and nor will they.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
My creationist friends would (I think) reply that the origin problem is a biggie, but also the addition of vast ammounts of information (e.g in the DNA etc.) required to evolve is just as difficult if not impossible.
One lent me an ID DVD recently and I must say I found the presentation very convincing. I could not see how the required complexity could possibly be achieved without a guiding intelligence.
Karma? Sorry, i don't believe in superstition. http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz
I'm not an expert. And frankly I was stuck at work today and couldn't answer this thread.
But, religous folk often associate the "Intelligence" as the unique factor between animals, plantlife, etc, as the difference as to why humans are unique.
The fact is, my dog cries when the kids leave. She is verbally upset (Besides chewing and pissing on the floor when she doesn't get to go with them). This obviously represents feelings. What do everyone say about relationships... "Oh, it's just chemical.. you really don't love him..." So what the @#$#@$ does my dog have?
This represents intelligence. She's VERY aware of the things around her. She lacks the abilty to tell us in "Human sounds" that she is upset. But, the chuch has corrupted minds for long enough to say that the lack of speach is what makes us "made" over every other creature.
She (my dog) has a tongue. She has teeth. Hell, she has a brain (And we see it functioning). She has lungs, a heart, a liver, hell, she's been fixed, and the male dogs have weeners. How much different is my dog from you and I, internally speaking? We all have four limbs. Our crap goes out between our legs. Our genetillia is between our legs right int he same spot. Hell, even a whale unloads out the back. In terms of an organ count, I think compared to an ammeba, she's on par with you and I.
My best friend's dad had a monkey (she died of old age recently, we all cried). Have you really sat and interacted with a monkey?? Let alone a chimp and or another species along the line? Listened to it try to talk to you (they do).. it's feelings.. it's hands.. It THINKS about what it's doing. Look at her when he's sick. Watch him get angry/upset. It's us!
Don't tell me we were created and all things are less. Live a little and don't live by what you are preached. Yes, we are more advanced, but, we are here out of luck, not because we were made to be better. We EVOLVED. OH SHIT! THAT WAS A BAD WORD! AND NOT SHIT!
There is a great website here - the companion to the TV series of a few years ago. The book is a great read too.
g e03.html
d ex.html
There is a very interesting section that shows the evolution of the eye in several phases and how in fact (oops I mean in theory) it is a series of simple steps each better than the previous one. There is a link to a video popup in the top left hand section of the text.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/pa
The most interesting thing about the eye is that it has evolved at least three times - or at least has evolved the complex form three times. Vertebrates, Mollusks (Squid/Scallops) and Arthropods (Lobsters, spiders, insects)
And the bit I love best is that Vertebrates have probably the worst eye of the lot - but compensate for it with an exquisite nervous system to process all the crap data. My mum got a detacted retina - yikes what a mess. Squid don't have that problem!.
Here is the start of their web page on the development of the eye - very cool...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/in
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
It sounds more like the school board is trying to encourage students to approach the theory of evolution with an open mind, not "denigrating the theory of evolution" as was stated in the court case. I think this sticker was meant to quiet the complaints of the 2000 parents who complained that the text books described evolution as the origin of life with-ought giving equal time to creationism. The sticker says "evolution is an important theory and students should approach it with an open mind", in answer to these parents criticisms.
I don't think this label really does promote creationism. All it says is that evolution is being taught as a theory, not a fact. Even if it does promote creationism, I don't see how it violates the separation of church and state. Evolution delves into issues that some people consider to be spiritual, and as such, is in a way "teaching religion". This label is merely a disclaimer saying that that is not the school board's intent, and that students should not take it that way.
I seriously hope that this ruling is overturned by a higher court.
I don't know why everyone gets all worked up over these things. Science allows itself to be challenged and I'm rather confident that science can withstand some silly stickers. Besides, how many of us use Evolution or Creationism in our day to day lives? It would be much more constructive to argue about the piss poor math abilities of our school kids. I think that above average kids could come out of high school at the level of the Lebesgue integration but they waste years on basic arithmetic in elementary when they should be doing algebra. Of course, the less skilled kids would be somewhere less than that and we'd need better math teachers for the Lebesgue stuff.
Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation.
Alzheimer incidence by age increases from 2% at 65 to 25% at 85 - after 85, incidence decreases due to deaths caused by the disease. Symptoms include progressive and chronic memory loss, behavorial changes, confusion, and disorientation. So, I believe Anthony Flew should visit a neurologist.
I will say one thing about my county government. They are one of the best when it comes to managing a county government. We have had expansion of services while at the same time taxes either rolled back or were not raised. They operate very efficiently and openly.
Now, as for this matter. While a Christian myself I see no reason for any government agency to act in a way that either promotes or denies any religious belief. Simply put, God can take of his own and himself and doesn't need meddling politicians to do so.
This is probably the only real waste of money that I have seen the board make. By waste I mean senseless waste as this is a totally no-win situation. No matter how it is worded it will be seen as promotion of religion. The environment of the courts and media is too highly charged to do anything that even remotely be seen as "Christian" related.
Regardless I will still live in this county for many years to come as it has some of the most friendly people, better living, and very good county and local city governments.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
that this pathetic attempt by religous fundamentaists to impose a creationist curriculum makes the critique of evolution and the critique of modern science even more difficult.
Science is not about truth. The measurement appropriate to science is the measurement of correctness. It is not about truth because it is personally irrelevant-ie. it has nothing to do directly with you or your actions and values-unless you are a scientist engaged in scientific activities. But the dogma of school science is about truth and pupils are by and large incapable of NOT drawing personal conclusions, conclusions about there own being, life and meaning based on what they are taught about science.
And it is indeed questionable if such is having a detrimental effect on our society. That so many adults are turning to fundamentalist christian beliefs is a an ultra hardcore indictment of our public school instruction about science. The void of personal meaning present in that which is being taught is real and tangible. It's not as if these adults were not subject to evolution in their schools curriculum....
Being against the fundamentalist doctrine of creationism does not mean that by default one endorses the theory of evolution. But this kind of situation, where the state acts to prevent an endorsement of religion in the public school curriculum, forces the issue-rendering things black and white.
The whole argument of science vs religion overlooks that there is practically little difference, in terms of conviction, between religion and science. Science is the religion of many modern day earth dwellers. It is accepted with the same kind of passitivity as is the case in most modern christians. Only a tiny percentage of people are actually scientists yet their theories, facts, and findings, translated into language which the non-initiated can understand, form the basis for much of our public schools curriculum.
Much of the religious nature of modern science is due not to science itself but due to the science (pedagogic) which has evolved to enlighten our childrens minds by teaching them about science.
Now one can argue about whether the material being taught is really science. And in the process overlook the fact that the indoctrination of scientific values and assumptions in our pupils impressionable minds is anything but scientific. To the extent to which 'science' and 'evolution' have become doctrines administered to our youth in the public school system the issues of what rightly constitutes science is no longer a decision of 'scientists'.
Evolution, an incredibly broad and overgeneral term for multiple conflicting and competing theories has become the basis of biology and the whole slew of neo-scientific adventures which have sprung up in the past 40 years (socio-biology, pyscho-biology and what not). In these scientific field there exists a degree of consensus about what evolution implies. This consensus around 'evolution'-or rather the raster of interelated theories which form 'evolution' has become so central, so pivotal that such neo-scientific adventures would vanish in a puff of logic if the non-verifiable ultimate hypothesis implied in 'evolution' where sufficiently debunked.
'Evolution' is in the first place a working tool which aids in organizing, categorizing the abundance of material gathered and explicitly casting these findings in terms of teleological causes.
As a tool 'evolution' is usefull for these scientific pursuits. As is the case with all tools- this tool will be surplanted in time by newer and more appropriate tools-as the sitution requires. 'Evolution'(eg. Maturana and Varela and the concept of autopoesis, natural drift) of today has remarkably little to do with Charles Darwins "Origins of Species".
The problem with 'evolution' in specific and 'science' in general is not that they are based on theories. Aside from the fact that everything which is not a theory is either (fantasy, mythology, mystery, fiction) or the unmittigated
If it is the case why are they not asking for the same stickers to be stuck on EVERY textbook? A fair amount of what is accepted as 'scientific fact' for day to day purposes are is still a theory. And not just the natural sciences with its theories of evolution, relativity, black hole formation but also things like economics and geography textbooks need stickers on them
In fact, now I think about it the same sticker should be on English comprehension textbooks - lets face it we don't really know what Shakespeare was trying to portray a misogynist society in The Taming of The Shrew - seems more likely to me that he was out for a cheap laugh. Much of history is the same.
And obviously, when sticking these stickers on, they need to do the bible at the same time. Something like 'Well the first half of this book is a collection of pan European mythical tales bought together in a nice anthology and the second half was about a dude who was really cool, but we don't like to talk about what he did between ages 18-30 as he may have been being a naughty boy' should be accurate.
Professor Karmadillo Songs of Science
I have karma to burn so lets just use some here:
When you have a theory, and it, in your opinion, makes the most sense compared to whats out there, and you are working in this field, you observations will invariable support the theory you believed in unless you come up with a better one.
The evolution theory is debated - one reason is that it's basic assumption is the following:
During one lucky momemt mass, substance and energy functioning in time-space, during one incredible lucky moment combined to form a self-propagating unit and that this element by chance grew and grew and then someday up the line man stood there.
Set up in that context how good odds would this get in a bet?
Of course religous people believing a soul have a hard time with this theory since it excludes and denies the presence of a soul and as such has formed the basis for people who believe that there is no soul, that we are basically just lucky to have mutated this way from mud.
I don't believe it, not even fairy tales are this illogical.
However since the theory is prevalant and since it's the only explicitly scientific theory I agree it should be taught in schools - but stating on the books that it is A) A theory and B) should be read with a critical mind is just common sense, you should note this about almost any theory and proposed idea.
That's a great idea. Like all scientific claims, they should be put to the test. However Flew may be only the beginning I suspect. The ID DVD I saw was very convincing. But then I am physicist, not a biologist.
Karma? Sorry, i don't believe in superstition. http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz
I agree with you, but I'm always wary of using the word 'supernatural'. I've elaborated the problem with this word here a little more.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
God's existence is a HYPOTHESIS not a theory, it has no framework underwhich the existance of god can be disproven and therefore cannot be considered a theory.
"God's existence is a hypothosis, not a theory" would be a better sticker.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
This Anthony Flew thing has evolved into a new creationist meme.
Here's an article about what he actually has said:
http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369
One quote from the page:
"In fact, he asked that I not directly quote him yet, until he finally composes his new introduction to a final edition of his book God and Philosophy, due out next year. He hasn't completed it yet, precisely because he is still examining the evidence and thinking things over. Anything he says now, could change tomorrow."
Flew also admits he hasn' really kept up on the latest research: "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction."
a sticker in the forefront of the Bible saying that most of the text are oral traditions not demonstrated nor contrasted by any other sources.
DON'T PANIC
to attach to the front of all bibles.
"This book contains material on Creationism. Creationism is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
I was considering also adding a note to indicate that
"The Bible has been neither peer reviewed, nor have any attempts by other messiahs to replicate the miracles contained within been successful"
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Eye_evolution links to some relevant papers.
The shareholder is always right.
I seriously wish I could atleast.
Before I get started, please note that I'm not religious at all.
That said, whoever came with the Tower of Babel hypotheis (yes, not theory, law or fact) did observe a very real fact: languages have a natural tendency to change and diverge. They do so continuously.
Even though there was a strong pressure to homogenize languages, e.g., the import of new words from neighbouring tribes/countries/etc, they still diverged much faster than that.
And they still do, in spite of having an official dictionary and an official grammar, and school and society pressure to stick to the official one.
Off the top of my head, words which changed or appeared very recently:
- "gay" used to mean "merry", then it meant "homosexual". And now it's changing its meaning _again_ to mean simply "uncool". (E.g., "Macs are gay". It doesn't mean "homosexual" as such, because computers don't even have any kind of sex.)
- "google" became a verb out of nowhere
- "cool" used to have something to do with temperature, but now your first thought would be something completely unrelated upon hearing "cool!"
Etc.
So the phenomenon does exist. It's a fact.
The more scientiffic explanation is that people like cool/new/hip/original/witty ways to say something. New words, new phrases, new metaphors, are cool. They enter the language, whether you want it or not.
The thing, however is that we don't know _why_ humans have this trait. Is it a survival trait that we haven't found out yet? A cultural phenomenon? (Bearing in mind that it existed in ancient and strictly conformist cultures just as well, not only in the modern days when it's hip to be different.) Or an act of an omnipotent God? We don't know.
Either way, again, the phenomenon described there is very real. It's a fact. Even if you or I don't believe the hypothesis that it's some act of an omnipotent god, it makes it no less real.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
" If they were, I'd have a major problem, because I am both a professional scientist, and a devout Catholic."
Actually you do have a major problem, but, like all people who try to be a scientist and 'devout catholic', you chooose to ignore it. You do not see a problem, because you do not WANT to see there is one.
If you say you are a devout catholic, I'm assuming you believe in the basic tenets of the bible. Seen that they are so contradictory and absurd (an all-powerfull/all-knowing being, life after death, heaven and hell, creationism, etc.: all these things defy common sense) it is ludicrous to say there is no opposite viepoint. Science is ALL about making sense of the observable universe, according to well defined scientific principles. The answer of the devaut catholic?:
"It doesn't need to make sense."
Well, indeed, as a personal opinion, it doesn't. But a (real) scientist wants to get to the truth (as in: as close to the observable reality as possible). The dichotomy between the two, thus, resides in how you view your particular religion in the light of your science. Answer: you don't. You shun it. And you will never do it, because there is no rational or scientific basis for believing in God or heaven, nor creationism, etc.
People like you seperate their religion and their science - yet feel they don't contradict eachother - because you never actually used your capabilities as a scientist to research your beliefs. If you did, you would notice that that belief is irrational and unprovable; things your scientific mind SHOULD tell you to disregard it.
I mean, c'mon, if you had ANY other theory that would be absurd and untrue on the parts you can check, and completely improvable when taking only the esotheric parts, then, as a scientist, you would regard that theory as useless and disregard it. Yet, you don not do that, when it happens to be your own belief.
It's not that they aren't contradictory; it's that you fail as a scientist when it comes down to your own religious beliefs.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
This is hostile territory, and they know it.
The geek community is one of the most openly athiestic in the country, as the postcount demonstrates.
Viva la groupthink!
People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation
No, your are misinterpreting something. Newtons Laws are a definition what 'force' is. You can't disprove definitions (except you find a contradiction inside the definition itself). With the law 'actio equals reactio' Newton states that force can be measured either at the acting or at the reacting point and it's meaningless to try to define which side the 'actio' is on and which side the 'reactio', because it defines 'force' in a way, that in a closed inertial system the sum of all forces is zero. This creates the scientific term 'force' rather than take the already existing term 'force' and state an additional property.
Energy is a similar scientific term that gets defined in a similar way. No, you can't prove that the sum of all energies in a closed system is constant. Rather you postulate that if at different points in time you measure different amounts for special types of energy, that the missing part has to be a different type of energy you didn't measure yet.
That's why the Laws of Thermodynamics are called 'laws'. They actually define, what Energy is.
Ok, thanks, so help me out here. What are the "theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction"? Every book I have read skips over this question.
Karma? Sorry, i don't believe in superstition. http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz
The school system did not single out evolution, the parents of students did. People found the corse material to be offensive, and therefore singled it out. The school merely responded to their criticism in the most even handed way possible.
Would you be happier if the school instead decided that evolution was a religious issue, and opted not to teach it at all? They aren't allowed to teach religion, and religion is defined by those who practice it, like the 2000 parents who protested the teaching of evolution.
It is ironic that court deemed the school's statement that evolution falls within the realm of science to be religious in nature. How much less religious could you get?
My mother used to tell me that thunder was angels moving furniture around.
If you were to read the "federalist papers", (the documents by the founding fathers to explain in greater detail what the mean in the dec. of independance and bill of rights etc...)
Then anyone with a little bit of sence would read, they were trying to keep the government out of the churches, and specifically NOT the church ouf of the government.
As i seen in someone else's sig "Where are we going?? and whats up with this hand basket?"
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully "designed" to have come into existence by chance.
When I was in high school (finished 6 years ago). We studied evolutino but we had brief discussions on other theories aswell. I don't mind the whole approach with an open mind thing. That should be put on everything. And evolution is fact. You really couldn't prove it more.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
The problem with this sticker is that it applies only to evolution, not to any of the thousands of other theories people are presented with at school. So it implicitly treats evolution as if it is not as accepted by the scientific community as the rest of them, thereby implying that religious claims about creationism and intelligent designs may have more claim to validity than they have.
That is what the judge had a problem with - not the text of the sticker by itself, but singling out evolution.
I don't think the parent was saying *all* bibles ever printed should have those stickers. Given his perfectly reasonable stance, I assume he was simply asking for parity. They have Bibles at school, don't they?
Descartes said the only thing we can be *absolutely* certain of is our own existence as a thinking entity. I think creationists need a big sticker putting on them. I just can't believe they're for real.
Just about everyone agrees that visible things like, say, electronics are real. We accept that the scientific method works, and that it works exceptionally well because it gives exceptional results. That's obvious and clear. Try denying this computer exists. If any clear and patently obvious technology contradicted something in the bible, it would simply be dropped by fundamentalists. But if you accept the method, you need to accept the consequences. The consequences of science include evolution. Just because I can't evolve humans in a machine overnight doesn't mean that it isn't true by the same standard that we accept baffling explanations like electromagnetism even though it makes little sense from an obvious standpoint. Science isn't always obvious. That doesn't mean that it's wrong, or that you can disregard less obvious parts are clearly wrong if they are required by all coherent theory.
Why not put a warning sticker on every single science book? Science only advances when somebody doubts the status quo. For a long time nobody doubted Newtonian physics. Then this Einstein fellow comes along and throws doubt on the whole thing.
Every theory is just a theory. Doubt them all - it's good science.
Gravity is a theory, not a fact!
/me prints out a roll of "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact" stickers...
Evolution is slow, with minor changes each time, but all the minor stages between Ape and Human died out for some reason.
This is a common misconception. The Apes we have today are not the apes we evolved from.
both humans and apes have evolved in parrallel over the years.
and all the "old" wersions have dissapeard because we New and improved pushed them of the map.
You dont have to be an analretentive nitpicker to be a tester.... But it helps
I love how Slashdot mixes it up on these inane linguistic minutiae.
Creationism is not a theory, it's just a load of crap.
(no, really!!)
how long until
The problem with trying to appease the creationist's argument of "Where is the missing link?" (If that can be called an argument), is that there are already dozens of intermediary fossils that precede Homo Sapiens. Each time one is found, the dogmatics respond, "Well, yes, but where is the fossil between that one and us?" In short, they will never be satisfied with any missing link that is found, because they will cling to anything that allows them to believe the universe was created by a divinity.
A better question is, if all life was created within a very short time, why does the fossil record invariably proceed from simple to complex? I don't recall any mammal fossils being found in the strata that contain the earliest invertebrates. Creationists would have you believe this is the work of a "Prankster God", who created a world full of evidence in favor of evolution in order to test man's faith in Him.
As the late comedian Bill Hicks said in his act, "I'm at the pearly gates. Saint Peter's like, 'Do you believe in dinosaurs?', and I say, 'Well, yeah, there's all this evidence; fossils, you know...' 'Straight to hell with you, sinner!'
I think the many posts and replies on what is a "theory" are sort of missing th point.
Lets go back and look at what happened in Georgia:
2,000 parents complained about how textbooks dealt with evolution. They did not complain about math, or english grammar, or anything else
they complained about evolution
Now it could be these are highly logical geeks parsing the word "theory"
right
the reason they complained is that they are bible based people who seek to impose their particular religious beliwefs on others.
Like most people, they want the schools to teach thir children what they believe in.
Cant say that is all bad, even if i do think they are bigoted neanderthals
There's a cord that joins my belly to her lady parts.
We have to travel together, of course, but I never have to eat, drink or go to the toilet.
When considering creation myths, please consider this one:
When the earth begun there was just water. All the animals lived above it and the sky was beginning to become crowded. They were all curious about what was beneath the water and one day Dayuni'si, the water beetle, volunteered to explore it.
He went everywhere across the surface but he couldn't find any solid ground. He then dived below the surface to the bottom and all he found was mud.
This began to enlarge in size and spread outwards until it became the earth as we know it. After all this had happened, one of the animals attached this new land to the sky with four strings.
Free Download
Click here for info
Many more titles available from
EarthBow eBooks
Just after the earth was formed, it was flat and soft so the animals
decided to send a bird down to see if it had dried. They eventually returned to the animals with a result.
The land was still to wet so they sent the great Buzzard from Galun'lati to prepare it for them.
The buzzard flew down and by the time that he reached the Cherokee land he was so tired that his wings began to hit the ground. Wherever they hit the ground a mountain or valley formed. The Cherokee land still remains the same today with all the land forms that the Buzzard formed.
The animals then decided that it was too dark, so they made the sun and put it on the path in which it still runs today.
The animals could then admire the newly created Earth around them.
-
This is the Cherokee Creation Myth. And Georgia resides in the Lands of Cherokee Nation. Why import a crazy story about snakes and apples and ribs when you can simply listen to the First Peoples -- *THEY* have the right answer to creation... at least the answer we choose if we abandon reason. Let other geographies have their fantasy about God/Adam/Eve - Im sticking with the Cherokee myself (oh, and reason).
Thank-you.
This is possibly the most sensible post in the whole topic. And you didn't get modded at all.
It's slightly off-topic, but one of the things I find hardest to understand is how those people who are keenest on Creationism are very often the same people who have the most blase attitude towards the environment. I mean, if you thought that every single species was individually designed by God, wouldn't causing the destruction of a species be the ultimate act of vandalism against the creator? Since he presumably designed each species to fit their ecosystem, isn't the deliberate damaging or destruction of an ecosystem sticking two fingers in God's face. Isn't it saying "Thanks for all the work you put in, God, but we've decided we don't need that crap any more so we're flushing it down the pan". If you really believe that God created the world and everything in it, how about showing it a little respect?
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
Yep, that's right. I live nearby, and though I do not have anything to do with the schools, nevertheless the stickers were a small step on the right track.
The Bible was written by the hand of Yhvh himself. He does not make mistakes. Now step out of the building and await calmly the lightning bolt. Have a nice eternity.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
(1) As a creationist, I think that it is important to challenge students to challenge this pervasive scientific theory. Although my degree was in physics rather than biology, the evidence that I see presented for evolution raises more than reasonable doubt.
(2) As a conservative resident of Cobb County, I want the federal courts to back out of our local business and let our schools teach the way that they see fit.
Ha, ha! Nobody ever says Italy.
To be balanced, they should have another sticker that reads:
"Creationism is also a theory, not a fact."
Pope John Paul II himself also declared that The Monster was "more than just a leader" (paraphrased).
The point I was making is that scientific proof is not the only method of determining truth. Any evidence you have of Julius Caesar's existence is historical, not scientific. So saying Jesus' existance is an untestable hypothesis is a true statement, coming from a scientific perspective. But so is the existence of every other historical figure. If you try and prove Jesus' existance from a historical perspective, it is just as provable as any other historical figure. No, I don't think there are any people that dispute Caesar exist. But that's primarily because because Caesar was not such a polarizing influence as Jesus and Christianity were. Anything controversial will have people who want to deny its existence. There are people who deny the Jewish Holocaust, and that's still in living memory. Any controversial event or person will come under attacks like that sooner or later. Whether or not you believe in what Jesus preached, there's pretty much no way you can say he wasn't controversial - or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
... contains what he said
As for the historicity of Jesus, maybe you should read your own links. I quote from a number of them:
"the existence of a historical figure named Jesus is commonly accepted by Christians and non-Christians alike"
"The reason they don't dispute it is because of the abundance of historical evidence for Jesus. Today, there is virtually no debate among serious scholars whether Jesus was real."
"I hate to spoil the party, but the fact is nearly all modern historians admit the existence of a man named Jesus. Any view that holds that he never existed is an extreme one indeed. And this has nothing to do with "cultural bias"; in fact, the question of Jesus' existence has been debated at length by scholars since the 19th century. The general consensus is that he was real, and this fact needs to be acknowledged in the article."
End of quotations. I'm not really sure why the "Talk" page of a Wikapedia article should constitute proof, but the first quote comes from the article itself.
No serious scholar questions the existance of Jesus of Nazareth any more than they do that of Julius Caesar. What they question is the veracity of his actions as recorded by his disciples, and that because extra-ordinary claims are made in them, not because the documents are any more unreliable historically than any other documents.
decided during the First Council of Nicaea in the year 325, three centuries after the alleged death of Jesus
The books of the Bible were indeed formalized at the Council of Nicaea. It was not written then, but that was when the various books that would make it up were formally decided. However, one of the top criteria used at that council was whether the early Christian church accepted the book in question as legitimate. So although a formal decision may not have been made until much later, that decision was itself based on an already-existing informal accptance.
even before we try to wonder if the Bible
If you have studied much of Roman history (along with Greek, pretty much the only ancient history that claims to record what people said), you'll know that historians doubt any of them contain the actual words spoken. The books of speeches and such are generally written after the event, and most historians assume, in a much more favorable light than the actual speech. So the historicity of non-Biblically recorded speeches is not exactly a great model to try and measure up to.
There isn't much reason for the writers of the gospels to lie about Jesus' existance anyway. The vast majority of the new testament is written to Christians. That is, to people who already believed in the existance of Christ. There's no need to try and fabricate stories when your audience already believes them.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
And since athiesm is just another religion
Athiesm and Science are not Religions. As much as theists try repeat it to add gravitas and moral authority to their own beliefs.
-
As for the rest of your commnet, did you read the judge's ruling?
"U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper concluded that the stickers, although worded to avoid religious reference, amounted to an endorsement of "Christian fundamentalist or creationist" beliefs.
"The sticker communicates to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders," he wrote."
This sticker did not materialize in a vacuum. It was placed by a Theist Cult to undermine scientific knowledge.
It is clear that *not* removing them would be (at least) an establishment of religion.
Science is about facts and theories - not beliefs and faith. If a group can foist a blanket over the intellectual pursuits of a minority (reasonable people (athiests)) with a sticker SOULY grounded in their opinion/beliefs/faith than the state would be establishing this religion's beliefs as authority.
(post1:) while atomic theory, gravitational theory, and germ theory can be tested, evolutionary theory cannot.
(post2:) Yes, it can, and has. If we found human remains in Precambrian strata, or if human DNA wasn't similar to the DNA of the other great apes, or if a cat ever gave birth to a dog, then evolution would be in trouble.
As an engineer watching this debate (and now dipping his toe into it), I don't find your rebuttal that persuasive. Analysis of the state of the world today (e.g. evolution) is a rational method, but it is not, to my mind, the scientific method (hypothesis, test, analyze, etc.) Whenever you are forced to use your analysis of a situation to predict and change it, your analysis is really tested in a fundamentally different (and superior) way than when you just take in new evidence and find you can make it mesh with prior evidence.
I confess I only skimmed a dozen of those speciation events in the FAQ you mentioned, but all the plant ones involved either observing or crossing-by-a-scientist. Not a scientist setting up an environment and watching chance do its work in creating new capabilities. (Actually some of the drosophila ones came at least close to using what I would consider the "scientific method" for evolution but I didn't find them too compelling. I didn't have the patience to wade through them all (work beckons) and you can discount my opinion appropriately.)
I've written natural simulation programs and I can tell you that it's not too hard to create an environment where, according to random chance a single trait changes from X to Y when you have coded a gene that allows variations in that trait. But evolution postulates that the genes weren't "created" and the notion of a trait wasn't "created" and that's a much subtler beast and based on what I've read over the years I don't quite buy that evolutionists have "proven" or even demonstrated it via a "scientific method".
I guess if I had to ask you one question, it'd be whether you agree with my distinction between a rational method and a scientific method. I see the latter being a subset of the former. If I'm wrong about that, then you probably don't have to even get into the evidentiary specifics.
--LP
You know, this could really take off. I can see drivers' training text books, with appropriate stickers adorning the sections on keeping distance and explaining braking lengths vs speed: "Remember, the theory of physics is only a theory, not a fact. There are competing theories saying that when you hit the brakes, the vehicle may come to an complete and immediate halt regardless of prior speed. Keep an open mind when you're speeding along the highway!"
sigs are hazardous to your health
"You'll be told many things in life. Don't believe all of them, ask questions, weigh the responses, do your own research, and form your own opinions."
That's what school's *supposed* to be about. Not school boards promoting their pet ideas and buying "lowest common denominator" textbooks.
Do yourself a favor, read your child's textbooks. Discuss them with your child, encourage them to think (critically) for themselves. It will only do them good as they grow up.
(and remind them that if they ever find themselves saying "hey, watch this", that they should immediately stop whatever they are doing and think long and hard about what might happen next!)
Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer
Formerly $10,000 offered since 1990
I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.
Put your money where your mouth is.
The stickers should read "Theory of evolution is just a theory". :-D
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Even History book coming from extrem majority christian religious country do not put "jesus" as a proven existence. Heck, try for example Hindu or chinese history books and text (please no religious text book) and citate me on which page it says Jesus has a proven existence.
"the existence of a historical figure named Jesus is commonly accepted by Christians and non-Christians alike"
is the worst of all. Please look back for publication which purport that and sooner or later you will find out that there are no proof beyond oral stories and written stuff up until 4th century AC.
Like all people you are confunding "commonly accepted existence" (aka without proof) and prooved existence.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The King James Only (KJO) movement is a small minority in Protestantism. I don't think any serious Evangelical scholars, including Southern Baptists, agree with the KJO proponents.
The New International Version (NIV) is by far the most popular translation in American Protestant churches. King James Version (KJV) comes in second place. It is almost completely neglected by the younger generations except in very traditional churches. New American Standard Bible (NASB) is also very popular, because it's a modern, literal translation, unlike most others.
In a group Bible study, it's not unusual to have four or more different translations among the participants. This is good, as it helps to flesh out a fuller meaning of the original text.
Because there are lots of different types of eyes that have evolved due to different purposes.
It is certainly NOT an example of an even semi-intelligent designer.
I mean what sort of engineer has the cables from receptors go BACK into the system thus creating a blind spot, rather than dragging them out the back. This is how it works on the octopus.
If you think god is a smart designer, explain how he failed when working on a human, and then did a better job on the octopus.
And don't even get me started on the fact that humans can choke on food.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
From what I learned in Catholic high school science class:
God used Evolution as his tool to create humans. Nothing was by chance. Evolution happened and it was God that made sure it happened that way. Humans just didn't appear and God said, "lets give them souls".
In Britain, evolution is taught as fact in school. We even looked at some evidence ourselves to see how it worked*.
Even most Christian preists accept evolution here, and just work it into their beleifs. Their attitude tends to be less "we have the answers" and more "there are *philosophical* questions that fall outside the realm of science, and we can help you work them out."
It seems obvious that the bible isn't supposed to be literal. It contradicts itself, and clearly many of the stories are contrived to put over moral arguments. Why is it then, that certain aspects, like the creation myth, are taken as being literal accounts? At least the stuff about Jesus' life is talking about actual events that people saw. The creation myth is clearly designed to add credibility to the bible, by giving answers to fundamental questions which are difficult to answer. Very few people here take it literally.
*IIRC, the example was moths in London, during the industrial revolution. At first, they were mostly brown, because that gave them the best camoflage against wood and stone surfaces. When people started burning lots of coal, everything got covered in soot and the air was thick with smog (pea soupa). Black moths blended in better, so after a few decades most moths were black because they had a better chance of living long enough to reproduce. When things cleaned up a bit, the moths eventually went back to being mostly brown.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I have nothing against stickers on textbooks saying "evolution is theory not a fact", provided we can also have a sticker on the front of each bible saying "God is a belief, not a fact". Do you think the creationists would go for it ?
There is a large difference. Gravity is accepted by probably about 99.9999999999% of the world. Evolution is accepted by a minority of the world.
As other will certainly point out, science is not a democracy. So I'll just dispute your claim that the theory of gravitation is universily accepted. I'm sure that most people would accept the observation that they tend not to float away from the Earth but do you really believe that everyone knows (and believes) that the phenomena is caused by attraction between masses?
No, in that you are wrong. Bertrand Russell spent several years and actually proved, in the real and rigorous sense of the word, that 1+1 = 2.
That's a mathematical proof, not a scientific proof, an example of the same word with two different meanings, like confusing free speech and free beer. Mathematical proofs are easy, and everywhere. High school students are taught them.
The scientific model, on the other hand, does not except absolute truth: everything is contingent and can it all be overturned tomorrow if the right evidence is found.
In the scientific view of the world, there is no such thing as absolute truth, the closest you can ever get is a "theory", and you can't prove theories, only observe that they match the evidence.
An idea that hasn't yet made it to the dizzy heights of "theory", that lacks supporting evidence is called a "hypothesis". In the scientific model the furthest point away from truth is "faith". Faith is the absence of evidence.
-- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as
Is that if someone who claims Evolution to be theory is automatically labeled a religeous nut. Doesn't matter who you are, the label comes and bears itself upon you like a scarlet letter.
The problem I have with the verdict is that the religeous nut side was immediately thought of and branded in the open.
I read the sticker and found it acceptable as it doesn't push religion and it isn't suggesting evolution is factual. However, it allows students to have that open mind. To the point where they can decide, "Hey, maybe evolution wasn't the ticket after all. Maybe creationism is wrong as well. I wonder what other avenue could be available to describe all this?"
When you don't label something as theory from the start, (Especially something that is for all intentional purposes theory) you begin to institutionalize the students, leaders, thinkers and scientists of tomorrow.
I guess I should also point out that it is also unconstitutional what the judge did. Teaching from a book that states evolution as fact to those who choose to have religion violates Amendment Numero Uno. I think the best solution is to have a waiver signed for all students. Those you are the "religeous nuts" can talk to their children before hand or even go to the extreme and not let them take the course. Those who belive the evolution route can sleep securely at night knowing that their kids aren't getting "perverted" by the idea that religion might be true.
Under every avenue that would probably be the best as it would protect the best intrests of all parents and children with the varying belief structures.
I can't understand why creationists only object to the theory of evolution. There are plenty of other scientific theories which could be helped by their guidance:
Theory of Relatively: Things occur because god says so.
Theory of Gravity: Things fall and do not fall because god says so.
Theory of Continental Drift: The earth's surface moves because god says so.
Heck, I figure with the creationist approach to learning, kids would only have to go to school for about a week before they graduated. How long would it take to teach a kid the following: If you can't explain something, or if you don't like the explanation science offers, just assume that god did it.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Be specific.If Lamarckism is your standard for "critical thinking" then you've already lost.
Lamarckism is easily and quickly disproved. No matter how much I bench press, any children I have
will NOT be born stronger.
"Critical thinking" doesn't mean complaining about something that you don't understand. If you see a problem with it, then why don't you come up with a counter theory that can better explain the observed facts AND be more testable.
That's all very well, but how far do want to take this "understand the foundation" thing? Do you need to study the Legend of Gilgamesh to understand the story of Noah? Of course not. Do you need to understand the Zoroastrian concepts of dualism and monotheism before you can grasp the Judeo-Christian interpretation? Obviously not.
-- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as
I think many of you have missed the point (all though I admit I haven't read the case). Don't argue over Evolution and creation, and science and relgion.
First of, the sticker is a form of free speech, which is just as important as weither a student is allowed to pray his/her relgion with a group of similiar students. However, no matter what the sticker says, the act in itself is a destruction of state property. Therefore even though the court rule is probably correct and fair in the end, the reason behind the ruling is not.
On the angle of what the sticker actually says, no matter what your relgious belief I think many of you are forgetting the fundamentals of science. Evolution IS a theory, not a fact. Creation is ALSO a theory and not a fact. And practically ALL of science is theory, not fact. Few items even get the privliage of the "LAW" status, except when talking about mathematics. I'd say 95% of mathematical theorys are actually law (fact), while less than 1% of all the other sciences' theorys put together have the "law" status and even those are still thrown back to "theory" status do to finding "experiments" that prove the theories wrong (think netwon vs einstein).
Use common sense! Biology and evolution are science, and creationism is religion. Do they teach about subatomic particles in church? No, I didn't think so.
If I wanted to learn about some bullshit thing where some all-powerful guy with nothing better to do creates everything and that has flaws everywhere (it only takes five minutes to crack almost 3,000 years, you know), I'd take a religion class. Oh wait - separation of church and state :-)
Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
Let them have their own society where they live with each other and teach their children whatever they want.
Of course, any people who hold beliefs they deem incompatible with the surrounding society should be allowed to similarly separate.
Such self-determination is the foundation of all human rights.
It is also the way nature creates: Through natural selection of variation.
Seastead this.
ABC News: Famous Atheist Now Believes in God
You mean: Famous 81 year old Now Believes in God.
-- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as
I don't know which side of the debate is dumber. The state, the evolutionists, the judges, or the creatonists.
The creationists are dumber. A scientific theory is the highest level of conjecture about a natural phenomenon. A theory has a great body of evidence supporting it, and no counter-evidence disproving it. By pointing out that evolution is a theory, creationists have accidentally lent evolution theory great support.
The judges are to be commended for recognizing that the intent of the sticker was to support a religious belief. My personal feeling is that the greatest harm done by the sticker is to teach children that the terms "scientific theory" and "conjecture" are synonyms.
CV, a cobb co. resident
Salut,
Jacques
Salut,
Jacques
Two things I noted in most of this discussion. One. It immediately fell into darwin vs. creation. That's not very important. What is important is that while Darwin's microevolutionary theory seems to work out, his macroevolutionary theory has not been proven. Darwin himself stated that if the fossil evidence could not be found to support it, then his macro theory was incorrect. Most of the time what people start arguing about is Darwin's macro theory. Sorry folks, but the evidence is pretty clear that the macro theory is wrong, but very few in the scientific community will stand up and oppose the secularist gospel. FYI. I believe in our creator. I know that there is no such thing as a "separation of church and state". AND I believe that Darwin made some wonderful observations and good guess about the wonders that God has placed in our world.
I know I'm late jumping into the debate, but here's my 2-pence. In scientific method, a "theory" is a "hypothesis" that has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests.
A "hypothesis" is (an educated) guess.
In general language though, a "hypothesis" is what people mean to say when they say "theory."
So when the sticker said that Evolution is a Theory, it is correct from scientific language point of view.
Actually, it isn't an issue of majority/minority. Our constitution very clearly indicates the separation of church and state. Would the grandparent like it if satanists happened to be the majority in his county and decided that satanism was to be taught in his kid's school?
the point is that school is for learning. the home and church is for religion.
What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
There are basically two different definitions of "theory" involved in this debate. The plebeian meaning of "theory" is "a vague idea", while the scientific meaning of "theory" is much stronger on the scale between "fact" and "fiction", leaning closer towards fact than the plebeian definition, which sits very close to fiction. It is even more enlightening to compare these two definitions of "theory" to the meaning used in mathematics, where a mathematical theory is absolutely fact and absolutely true.
These stickers are a tool of creationist, who intend to confuse the difference between the multiple meanings of the word "theory". It is definitely a violation of church and state, and a sick example of how religion can be used to set back scientific progress and education.
It's actually quite tiring to try to make rational arguments to "believers" who seem to lack the ability to recognize what, to me, are pretty straight-forward logical arguments.
Here's a simple description of evolution in progress over the last hundred years:
A while ago, some guy discovered that penicillin (sp?) killed a lot of bacteria quite effectively -- as a result the medical community (and the human population taken as a whole) received the benefits of antibiotics. Well antibiotics are incabable of killing every bacterium in a given host -- especially if the entire percribed course isn't taken). The result is that those bacterium with an existing resistance (not immunity -- just enough better able to withstand the assault that they don't die) to the treatment are the ones that survive to create progeny. They pass their resistance on to their "children". Those children are then subjected (possibly in a different host) to another treatment, maybe even of a different antibiotic, and the cycle repeats. Ultimately, this produces a strain of, say, staphlococcus (sp?) that laughs at penicillin (sp?), and since species are simply our classification of organisms based on certain characteristics -- presto! a new species of bacteria. Get it?
DNA, the agent of heredity (as much a theory as evolution is, I might add), is subject to occasional changes in the order of the nucleotides that make up it's structure -- errors in replication or mutagens that cause one of the nucleotides to be replaced by another have been shown to occur regularly but only sometimes have any effect on the organism. Of course we know that DNA codes for the creation of protiens and if the change in the order of nucleotides is sufficient than the type of protien is different enough to affect the function of a critical action (like the ability to deal with penecillin (sp?)).
Simple enough right?
I'd be delighted to hear a well reasoned argument that describes how we now have resistant strains of bacteria that relies on intelligent design instead. Maybe God *wants* us to get gangrene so he just creates a new variety while we wern't looking and tricks us meanwhile by allowing observed bacteria as they evolve in a laboratory?
I know that ID really means that life is too complex to have arrisin (sp?) by chance but rather required an Inteligence to allow it to happen -- but that is untestable, unrepeatable, and un-observable, and make no predictions about future observations -- so it isn't science and has no place except in philosophy or religeon classes.
I report to Colonel 2.6.1 and General Chaos is his boss.
A flood hits a small town and a homeowner finds himself stuck on the roof of his house surrounded by water.
A few hours into the first day a rowboat comes by and the man at the oars tells the man on the roof to get in, he'll make sure he gets to shore safely.
"No, thank you" the man on the roof says. "I have faith that my Lord will save me."
The next day, with the waters still rising, a powerboat comes by. Despite repeated entreaties, the man will not get off of the roof. "I have but to wait for my Lord. He will deliver me from the valley of the shadow of death." After more attempts at reason, the crew of the powerboat leave him on his roof.
On the third day the waters are creeping up the slant of the roof, and the man is stuck at the peak. A helicopter flies low over him and a rescue swimmer jumps into the water and swims to the man on the roof. "No" he says. "You may get into your basket and leave. I have been a servant to God my whole life. He will not forsake me. He will deliver me. You'll see."
On the fourth day the man drowns. He goes to heaven and after passing through the gates is greeted by God.
"Why did you leave me to die, Lord? Have I not been a good and faithful servant?"
God replies: "I SENT TWO BOATS AND A HELICOPTER!"
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
nt
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Ooopsie. Thought you were pushing the "You are accepting someone elses word for it either way" view.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Take notes, people. Liberals never want you to expose any truth about them. "Global Warming" has to be a fact and no one can be critical. The Theory of Evolution worked under just such a dogma. Hammer it until it's accepted as fact and redicule any attempts to question it.
The sticker said "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
Someone explain the "creationism" in that statement, please. I can't find it. Let's break it down. "Evolution is a theory, not a fact." True. Widely held and supportive of evidence, but a theory nonetheless. "The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." This could just as easily be construed as ENCOURAGING creationsists to consider Evolution. Once again academia wants "careful, scientific, and logical study" to only inlcude acceptance of their ideology. This is idiotic.
My wife was asking me this morning, having seen this news item in the paper, whether any developed nation other than the U.S. has a significant proportion of the population not believing in evolution (according to Gallup[http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.as px?ci=14107], 2/3 of Americans do not believe evolution is well supported by the evidence!).
I wasn't aware of any. Can anyone offer other countries with similar situations.
Note, this isn't stray America-bashing. Both my wife and I are American citizens (in the 1/3 minority), although we don't currently reside in the US. It's a sincere question.
Respectfully, David Tallan
Nobody will see this post, but I have to make it. Do you stupid Americans realize that every other country in the world laughs at us when we talk about creation? This issue was settles many many years ago in just about every other western society. Only in America are enough people stupid creationists to have any amount of recognition in society. If you were creationist just about anywhere else not only would you be a member of a ridiculous minority, you would also be a laughing stock. People in the United States largely do not understand science and technology. And eventually that will be the ultimate downfall.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
It is impossible to understand Judaism-Christianity, without understanding their pagan, egyptian mythology, and nature-worshipping foundation.
You don't see many southern baptist ministers delving into that rabbit hole.
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/09/17_fra nken.html
you'll probably like this.
I take offense at the parent's summation of my beliefs about religion, particularly his putting words in my mouth claiming I believe "It [religion] doesn't need to make sense." Before you attack somebody this way, make sure you know what you're talking about.
Religion makes quite a bit of sense, and if Catholicism did not answer and agree with more of the facts I have observed about existence than any other explanation, I would not be a Catholic. You claim the basic beliefs of a Catholic are contradictory and absurd. (I assume you meant contradictory to science.) Well, let's examine the beliefs you stated:
the existence of an all-powerful/all-knowing being - Science says absolutely nothing against this, and the existence of miracles (many documented, many non-subjective, but not qualifying as scientific proof as we cannot command God to provide miracles on demand) provides ample evidence.
life after death/heaven and hell - Please tell me which scientist has died and reported back that there is nothing. Science implicitly cannot measure anything about what happens after death, as we cannot provide an observer. Strong argument in favor of religion is that science also cannot explain life itself (organic life yes, but not the concept of making choices). I have more evidence for my ability to make decisions (true decisions, not computations) than I have for even gravity. Pure science has not yet offered any explanation of how I as a purely material being could make a real choice. Therefore, there is more evidence for religion (albeit not a specific one) than for the theory of gravity.
creationism: If you had actually read my post which you were attacking, you would have seen that I am not a creationist (and neither is the Catholic Church). The Catholic Churh has no problem with evolution assuming you allow that God created man, through evolution.
Please at least understanding what you are attacking before you do so. I have applied all my scientific skill to my examination of my religion, and have never found a true contradiction. Religion, for the most part, addresses issues that are not measurable by science, such as what happens after death. For the rest, there is strong evidence for religion. I'm not ignoring the contradiction; I have searched and found there is none.
I too would prefer more stickers. Stickers indicating that the aforementioned stickers are not proven facts, but they themselves are opinions regarding the factual nature of the theories contained within the attached book.
What I think is funny is that there are educated people who think that there is such a thing as "the Calculus". "Calculus" literally means a formal system for mathematical reasoning. There is integral differential calculus, as well as various logical calculi such as Gentzen's sequent calculi, and there are calculi for algorithms too, such as the lambda-calculi, etc.
Talking to some people, you get the impression that mathematics is something that was set in stone a few hundreds of years ago, and that mathematics is solely about numbers. This helps explain the completely broken public school curriculum for mathematics, which holds integral differential (in your case "the") calculus as the zenith of mathematics... forcing everybody down the same educational path, at the expense of other branches of mathematical education.
"This book contains material on religion. Relion is a baseless usubstantiated theory lacking evidence of validity, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered in context of the evidence presented."
00101010
That's a flawed comparison. A _correct_ one would be "not all material in this book has been proven." There are quite a few things in the bible that have been proven. Besides, anyone who blatently goes around yelling "God doesn't exist" is more close-minded than a stereo-typical southern baptist. Have you ever even bothered to think "what if"? Or are you too afraid of what you might find? Creepy, eh?
I said, and you quoted, "God is a myth, not a fact".
YOU say I said "God doesn't exist".
So firts off, STFU and don't put words in my mouth, you words are dirty.
Secondly, god is a myth:
So until you can prove that your god exists, deal with the fact that it's a myth.
You can't take the sky from me...
All these questions must be answered before your statement can be validated.
If you see spelling or grammatical errors don't blame me. I tried to preview but IE here at work borked the CSS
This is good... Mod up someone.. Please..
As I recall the theory goes that the whole increased brain capacity of man came about due to walking upright and the cooling effects of the elevated head.
I would imagine that the human style feet were part of this process.
I think that dogs (as an example) are outside of the process of natural selection. Breeds that would not survive in the wild have been artifically maintained by breeders into some of the freakish "dogs" that we have today to the detriment of their own quality of existence.
As an example of many different similar animals, I think birds fit this example (see Darwin & Finches). But many of the differences are enviromental rather than physical - i.e. they've adapted gradually to their enviroment
Returning to monkey feet though, I've seen me feet and they are pretty damned ugly!
I cannot be 100% certain that there is no god at all, but what I am 100% certain of is that the "catholic god" does not exist (ironic, isn't it?). Here's the reasoning.
God is supposed to have created everything in 7 days, earth and sky, light and darkness, animals and humans. He would have made the humans "intelligent" and make them look like him, so we should expect God to stand on 2 feet, have 2 arms, 10 fingers, etc.
Evolution is indeed just a theory, so we can't use it to refute the creationist theory. But we can look at the facts on which the evolution theory is based. We today are Homo Sapiens Sapiens (not a typo, it's really a double-Sapiens), and we would believe that the catholic god looks like a Homo Sapiens Sapiens himself, since we look like him. However, millions of years ago, there were no Homo Sapiens Sapiens, there were Neaderthals. Let's not assume we evolve from them, since we're not allowed to use the evolution theory. So, either the catholic god wasn't there "from the start" and created the Homo Sapiens Sapiens after the Neanderthals, or the catholic god looks like a Neanderthal, created the Neanderthals, and Homo Sapiens Sapiens evolved from there (a mix of both theories).
BUT , long before the Neanderthals walk the Earth, there were dinosaurs. At the time of dinosaurs, there were no Homo spieces, there were monkeys. So either the catholic god wasn't there "from the start" and created the Homo spieces (and sub-spieces) after the dinosaurs and the monkeys, or the catholic god looks like either a dinosaur or a monkey, and we evolved from there.
And it keeps going like that until we reach the real beginning of time.
So, even without the theory of evolution, we know for a fact that animals and dinosaurs have been walking on this Earth long before the first human being. Whichever way you look at it, the book of Genesis is just plain wrong. Either god didn't create everything from the beginning, or he didn't do it in 7 days (it took millions of years for Homo Sapiens Sapiens to be here), or he doesn't look like a human being at all.
I don't know enough about other variations of Christianity or about other religions to know if the same kind of reasoning applies, but in my mind, there is no god.
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
so wait - what are the two sides of that equation?
I it as "Infinite god equals zero" then it reduces to "One god equals zero" which can be restated as "god is nothing".
cyn, free software and *nix operating systems enthusiast.
"Therefore, it is not a fact"
Now that's not even a theory, that's a pure assertion.
The theory of Evolution has clearly not been proven untrue, since we're not privy to a scientific examination of the unfolding of creation. Whether or not the theory of Evolution describes the facts which led to our existence will never be known. To say it is not a fact, is to presume that you have some supernatural insight. You do not.
(Despite reigious beliefs which you may or may not posess, your lack of supernatural insight into the creation of the universe is a fact and it's quite impossible to contradict in any objective way.)
You know, all this just boils down to people who cannot deal with any amount of uncertainty in their lives. Just let everything be explained, and they'll be happy.
A saint once said, If it were not for the miracles, I would not be a Christian.
The Age of Miracles is over. I'm an empiricist. Miracles are one thing, repeatable results are another. These days, Science gets the results.
Let's look at the scorecard, shall we?
Faith ruled Europe for fifteen hundred years with an iron hand. Faith's crowning achievement was some pretty buildings, some nifty art, and some good books that only a privileged few could read.
Reason has ruled the Western world for the last five hundred. And while some may lament the dubious contributions in the areas of art and literature, our quality of life has risen dramatically.
Faith gives you the courage to face the ravages of Nature as Nature pummels you into the ground. Big Reward to come in the Great Bye and Bye.
Science gives you a big fat honking stick to beat Nature back with. Payoff in this lifetime if you don't get too stupid or too greedy.
You know, maybe that's why the Fundies get so outraged: Science says that all of their "faith" is probably for nothing. No Hell below us, above us only sky. as John Lennon said. Pretty unsettling stuff for someone expecting his singing to drown out the screams of the damned in the Great By and By.
Hey, that's what I believe, anyway
6.2
"If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" --Voltaire
If you see spelling or grammatical errors don't blame me. I tried to preview but IE here at work borked the CSS
You want evidence for evolution? Penicillin used to be a powerful drug. It isn't anymore. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are very real.
Classical Darwinian theory suggests that misuse of antibiotics -- overprescription, and/or premature discontinuation of treatment -- should lead to the evolution of strains of bacteria which are resistant to those antibiotics. What do people do? They take antibiotics when they don't really need them, and stop taking them at the first sign of feeling better. But in those last couple of days of a course of penicillin, the combined effects of your body's immune system and the antibiotics together are killing every last germ stone dead; without that boost, the strongest bacteria could recover, multiply and pass on their immunity to the antibiotic, and you would eventually have a strain of bacterium that was resistant to a particular antibiotic.
Scientific observation and experimentation bear this proposed mechanism out, so I am prepared to claim this as an observeable example of evolution in action.
Beside which, if you want to go that far into it, electromagnetism is only a theory, not a fact; there could be some other, completely different reason why a television set works.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Hmmmm.... speaking philosophically, I'm not sure that Spinoza's argument holds up. Disclaimer: I don't know his work, so I'm just going on the argument presented in the parent post.
"Therefore, there is an entity which contains both God and the Universe he created."
Why must God be contained in another entity? That doesn't logically follow from any of the prior statements, or any other absolute necessity I can see. Introducing contradictory statements into the argument only invalidates the argument, not the subject of it!
This may actually be a reflection of the naive (and at the time, perfectly scientific) belief that space and time were some kind of absolute given backdrop that "everything else" just happens in. So you couldn't conceive of an entity without also having somewhere for it to be.
As far as religion goes, I don't even know what I am in terms of belief. The closest I can get is agnostic, but not necessarily in a Christian sense. I can argue it one way, and in the paradoxical style I've come to understand is the hallmark of this universe, when I follow it all the way to its logical end, it no longer makes sense, and I have to switch sides... Repeat...
That is what makes it difficult, of course. For the purposes of this discussion (how the "correct" moral values are chosen), we are a democracy. The exact form is only a second order change. It just happens that one of the morals of our society is not to shove our morals onto other people, except in extreme circumstances (murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc.).
The problem with sticking with testable, scientific methods is that there is disagreement about what constitutes a testable method. Many scientists do not believe that palentology is a science. Most scientists do not believe that Psychiatry is a sciences. Others do believe those to be a science... who's "moral" judgment do we go with? In our society, we have said the majority decides (or as you have pointed out, more of a locally weighted majority, but still the majority).
This is not a black and white issue. Honestly, I'm not sure which side of the argument I am really on, I just know it is not a simple argument. I teach my daughter, so I am not really worried about what her teacher at school teaches. But that is not true of others, and there are people that unfortunately believe whatever is told them by those in authority, and there exist teachers that teach evolution as law.
If a parent teaches their child creationism, that is protected by freedom of religion. Teaching a contrary theory (evolution) as the "truth" in school, without at least mentioning the level of dissent in society, would be unethical no matter what you believe. And believe it or not, what is taught in school is accepted as truth by the vast majority.
(Evolution is at the very least an extremely important theory, because it is the only successful theory to violate causality.)
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Haven't you heard?
>>Just like science can't explain the pre-big bang universe
s/can't/hasn't/
If you want to quibble about missing data points even when the curve is clearly visible, maybe you'd like to explain to me where God is when kittens are run over by cars? Having his omnibenevolence washed and waxed? Please.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
What's he talking about? Comparitive DNA analysis is one of the best proofs for evolution.
I've studied the entire human genome thoroughly, and found no evidence of intelligent design. You want to impress me? Show me pi to 20 places encoded in DNA, the Fibonaci sequence, or the first 64 prime numbers.
But there was a section near the end of the Y chromosome where, if you played it backwards it said, "Paul is dead." That really freaked me out. But it's within the statistical limit of probability.
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
Is evolution even a science. My definition of science is the scientific method.
You create a hypothesis
You test the hypothesis
You either confirm or change you hypothesis
You write a conclusion
And be able to repeat.
You can test the theory of gravity.
Pick up an object and let go
Repeat as many times are you like
You do not need to see gravity to test the effects of gravity.
You can do the same for electricity.
You can see the electron cloud using a very good microscope
These are sciences you can use MATH to project what is going to happened and test you projection.
Can you test evolution?
Does is stand up to the scientific method?
Can you test your hypothesis?
Can you change one species to another?
Can you repeat the process?
Can you use Math to calculate what is going on?
Then answer is no
Until we have more science and less theory it is not a science
Evolution is best a hypothesis at worst a MYTH.
It should not be in a science text book
Ohhhh! The children might actualy question evolution! They might listen to what these "christian nut jobs" have to say about it!
Seriously though, why is it such a horible thing to have an alternate view presented.
Even though you forgot the question mark, I'll awnser your "question":
Because of the separation of church and state.
In science class, they get taught science.
No one is forcing churches to explain why Lamarck was wrong to their faithfull, so why would you want schools to indoctrinate children in your myths?
You can't take the sky from me...
DeoxyRibonucleic Acid also known as DNA.
Look it up sometime - it will explain a lot.
Evolution is a theory, not a fact.
Creationism is a belief, not a fact.
PENAROL: Seras eterno como el tiempo y floreceras en cada primavera.
do we allow kids to throw salt over their shoulder, for good luck?
Yes! Dear GOD yes we allow it.
We just don't teach it in science class or include disclaimer stickers in statistics text books to that effect. But we sure do allow it!
You can't take the sky from me...
This sort of gets to it, but misses my point a little. In software, the code itself has no will to live so the analogy fails.
Take 3 brothers, ug, zug, and zig. Zig has a mutation that leads his descendants to become human. Ug has a mutation that leads his descendants to become apes. Zug is normal. Why did Zug die? People like zug obviously outnumber the exceptions. People like zug have lived for millions of years. Now, because 1 member of the population has a mutation, suddenly every normal person dies? That deosn't make sense.
Some people have said that it was because a hardship arose that killed off everyone that didn't have the mutation. That could happen, but would be VERY rare, and too rare to explain this (people survive for more than one reason, most of the time - even luck).
The best explainations seem to be that an isolated group (constantly interbreeding) slowly becomes homogenized. So a mutation happens, and then the gene is slowly spread throughout the community if it is advantageous. I'm still not convinced that this would lead to much natural selection - in general even the weak animals get to breed at a certain point.
Interesting responses, though.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
"lacking evidence of validity"
... they all have proof they have existed and existed as decribed in the Bible.
... I believe in the evolution of a species, but not the evolution of Ape to Man.
This is one argument that atheists or agnostics can't make.
Has no Sodom & Gomorrah been discovered? Was it not charred by a seeming "nuclear type" explosion?
Was there no King Herod who had all the first born children killed?
Was there no flood of any type? Is there no scientific evidence to support this?
Was there no Paul?
Before you answer no to any of those questions - do some research
Now, the Bible may have a lot of unbelievable elements as well (to you). But evolution has a lot of unbelievable (and believable) elements to those that subscribe to the Bible.
For instance
I believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth - I do not believe they evolved INTO birds.
I believe that Sabre Tooth Tigers existed - I do not believe they devolved into Tigers or that Tigers and domesticated kitty cats are anything related to evolution.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
By the way, the point of all this is partially to show that what they are teaching in schools is known to be wrong by everyone that has studied it or merely believes in creationism. Even assuming that evolution is correct, the evolution being taught in school is incorrect in important ways.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
By that same route of thinking, shouldn't stickers be placed into religous text as well?
Mod this flamebait if you wish, but it made you think didn't it?
Live forever, or die trying.
Natural Selection happening on a microscopic scale does not in any way prove that we all started as dust and evolved into our current forms.
The Theory of Evolution (unlike the bible) does not claim that we started as dust. What is the agenda behind your dishonest claim?
well, technically, gravity is still a theory, as we haven't been able to test all applications of it in the real world, but as far as we've been able to test, it's been pretty much bang on
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Do you have some other word for billions of tiny particles clumping together at random? What is the agenda behind your being a fucking moron who should shut up?
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
As has been said, the theory of evolution never states anything about where anything came from in the first place, so creationism and evolution are two totally different topics that only nattering nabobs would waste their time fightng over. Apples and oranges, you dopes. Now quit with the mental gymnastics before you hurt yourselves.
What was created could very well evolve, and that is the theory. Ring species are just nature's law that keeps cousins from makin' teh babies, you know. lol
Karma: Bad is the liberal way of saying this guy won't drink the kool aid here on slash dot. I wear my Karma with pride
... providing we're allowed to stick "Christianity is only a theory" stickers on all the school bibles as well.
charlie harvey's website
Creationists should wear stickers warning possible employers and associates that their brain does not work.
A nightline reporter asked board members last night was what Intelligent Design meant. Most bullshitted incoherent answers, showing they didnt have the faintest idea of what it was. I.D. is just a stand-in for anti-evolutionism, with relatively few understanding what it means.
Evolution was a philosophy created to alter the world views of the people that believed in the Theory of Evolution.
Scientists have spent about 150 years doing research on evolution. There are many things in evolution that have been known to be a lie for at least 50 years. These lies are still in textbooks today.
The more research into evolution, the more evidence is found against it. Any proof offered to evolution has turned out to be a fraud. Neandertal man is a hoax. The skulls found that were humanoid were in fact just humans. The more apelike skulls came from apes. Old human skulls with unusual characteristics have an ape's face put over it to give evidence for evolution. The first ape-man was proven to be a fraud in the 1930's. It was an ape skull with a human mandible. There is no missing link. The geologic column never existed.
Here is the ugly truth about evolution.
The people that created it and are teaching it to the people are conducting Psychological Operations (PsyOps) on us to help bring out their goals. PsyOps are downwardly delegated. It's not the individual teachers that want to brainwash the children. There are only a few book companies in the US that print textbooks for students. If you trace those companies back far enough you fill find that they are controlled by a central source. Colleges are a great place for someone to lose their faith and fall into the pitfalls of evolution. It's so strongly shoved down their throats so badly that students have to support the theory to graduate in many cases. Teachers get fired on a regular basis that don't believe in evolution (evilution). The Supreme Court members are biased for evolution.
The nefarious plot to brainwash all of us is simply to bring out the New World Order.
To bring out the NWO, society must change their ideas about world government, human rights and politics. The way they do that is by brainwashing, plain and simple.
The Evolution THEORY is being taught in schools rather in depth. It doesn't matter that everything about it is a fraud and a lie to them. The art of brainwashing is making people believe in a well crafted story. The goal of the story is that it must be believable and the story gives covert and overt messages that try to make the reader accept whatever lie is being told to them. It's such a big lie that most people can't see around it because only 1 view is taught in the classroom. That's what brainwashing is all about, present one view and force people to learn a great deal about it without giving another side to compliment and suppliment it.
First, one does not shed one's First Amendment rights "at the schoolhouse door". The Constitution protects free exercise of religion in the public sphere, and public schools, are, well, public.
But that is not the main point. To say that evolution is a theory and one should have an open mind is simply not an endorsement of religion. One could have this opinion and not believe in God. In fact, having an open mind is supposedly something liberal-minded people who go where the facts lead them ought to support and encourage.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
well, i personally think you bring up some semi-valid points in your flame, so i'll bite and reply.
why are there still monkies around?
well, reason for that is everything on the planet is equally evolved, they just took a different road and edned up where they are, we took another one, and ended up as the "intellegent" life form of the planet.
Why don't dolphins have thumbs by now?
evolvution works buy addapting to conditions, thumbs would be of little use underwater, and likely would impede the streamlinedness of a dolphin.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Also worth mentioning that Douglas Adams was an atheist. Not that it makes too much difference but it does put the joke in a slightly different context.
Schnapple
I'm just as tired of bible-thumping idiot moves like this as the next guy, but isn't the sticker right? Evolution IS a theory not a fact.
"This is a great day for Cobb County students," said Michael Manely, an attorney for the parents who sued over the stickers. "They're going to be permitted to learn science unadulterated by religious dogma."
I suppose that he should thank religious dogma for the word "unadulterated"?
McDowell was an Atheist who attempted to prove there was no God based on all available evidence.
So, because he couldn't prove the non-existence of god, he went from atheist to christian ? Maybe someone should have just pointed out to him that you simply can't prove a negative and he wouldn't have needed to convert.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
+1, Anthropic Principle
Chuckle. Is that the theory that says if I'm reading a post that it has been modded up? Otherwise I wouldn't have seen the post and would never have asked the question in the first place?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I am an American, church-going, caucasian, midwest-living Christian. I believe placing these stickers on a science book is a mistake. I believe the theory of evolution is the closest explanation we have. I do not believe earth was created 6,000 years ago. Please don't generalize in a hateful way. There are more of us than you know.
I'm the decider.
Do you have some other word for billions of tiny particles clumping together at random?
You are missing the point, which is hardly a surprise. The Theory of Evolution does not say anything about how life began, only about how it has changed over time. The theory of how life began is called abiogenesis. That particular theory has life beginning in the ocean. No one with two brain cells to rub together would claim that dust is a synonym for ocean.
What is the agenda behind your being a fucking moron who should shut up?
Wow. After only one message you fall to pieces. That's much more quickly than most people would have. Perhaps you should run along now before you before you lose the ability to form complete sentences.
"The basic need for faith, in something, by far exceeds the need to keep one's worldview intellectually honest." - a Slashdot poster whose name I don't remember
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
You. Right. Grumsh hate evolution. It stinky farty poo. Atheists go squish now!
It's not that I don't believe in evolution--but let's look at what the sticker says and what the constitution says.
1st Amendment:
"...no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Sticker:
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
I fail to see how viewing evolution as a theory establishes a state religion or prohibits the free exercise thereof. Furthermore, what about an atheist teacher who doesn't believe in evolution and tells his students that? Is he failing to separate church and state? What about the people that view evolution as a significant part of a religion? Sir Julian Huxley is quoted as calling "the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth." Does that mean that we should no longer teach evolution because it is part of some religion?
(Note: Since I do not actually have Julian Huxley's Essays of a Humanist, I grabbed that quote from a website I found through google. Disclaimer: that website was a very anti-evolution website and so if that quote is wrong, missing context, or whatever, please tell me, but realize it was an honest mistake.)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lost Sheep to Shepard, you got your ears on?
When I was taking Biology in my Upstate New york High School, my teacher expalined there was an alternate theory called "poofism". He explained that some people believe that everything was made by an all-powerfull being that "poof!" created man and "poof!" created animals and.. you get the idea. Is that why I have a "Darwin" fish on my car these days?
Maybe we should place a warning label on your shirt as well: Caution, due to certain quantum theories, this person may or may not exsist. Please keep an open mind and use caution not to accept his existsence blindly.
When I first heard of the sticker controversy I was pretty suprised. The sticker seemed innocous enough and had a valid point - think critically about the theory of evolution
But the Judges ruling makes sense too. Why single out just one theory? The sticker should be more generic.
This textbook presents some theories that are widely accepted, but NOT proven fact. When you encounter theories in this, or any book, you should think critically about the theory and any opposing viewpoints.
I think this would not only serve the purpose of the religious folks who wanted the first sticker but maybe it would actually lead to one or two students to THINK about things.
It seems to me that "faith" is confused with "existence belief" far too much. Faith is not the irrational belief in the existence of a god, a deeper meaning in life, or little blue fairies. It's the *act* of choosing to take a position, even if you're fully aware of the ultimate lack of proof either way. This may be a subtle distinction, but it's one that I don't think enough people make. Ultimately, most of us have some kind of faith, examined or not, whether it's in the existence, or non-existence, of god, or that tomorrow will be better, or that England will/won't win the next World Cup. Unanswerable questions that we take a position on. Strangely, religious people seem to confuse this more than non-religious people, possibly because they don't critically examine their thinking enough (the Christian church hasn't historically encouraged that kind of thing, even though JC himself was quite into questioning established thought patterns). It may also be because the theologies of established religions tend to become quite baroque. Try rationalising the unanswerable and see where you get after several centuries. So maintaining belief in the existence of all that baggage takes increasing amounts of Faith. Maybe this indicates that religions have a natural lifecycle. What seems like a wonderful, intuitive and liberating idea in the context of one millenia, over time accumulates keepers of the truth, theologians and other people with an irrational desire to package the numinous and mysterious like a box of chocolates. This may also explain why I know an increasing number of people who profess a belief in God, or at least, a Creator (which seems to me to be a more general word with less historical baggage) but do not, and will not follow the Christian Faith anymore.
Hear, Hear!
-Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
NEWSFLASH! Dateline, Michigan - After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries.
So is fighting for a student's right to express themself in a yearbook is just the most insidious of the ACLU's never-ending struggle to exterminate Christianity in public life or are you just nurturing a healthy persecution complex?
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
It is no great stretch of the imagination to see different variations of a single species evolve - selective breeding achieves this. Humans have achieved a lot with such techniques with plants and animals in just a couple thousand years.
Where the evolution theory breaks down for me is the theory that all life came from a single source, or even much earlier, that for example, mammals started out as one mammalish creature.
Of course, there's a problem even with the "variations on a species" theory for "Creationists" (really, that's kind of tarring people with the one brush to use that label). The idea that humans, apes and monkeys came from the same source *is* in contradiction with the Bible's assertion that humans have been made in God's image. I can't really see how anyone claiming to be Christian (or indeed other such religions) can sit comfortably with the more involved evolution theories being thrown around, and more importantly, *sold as fact* to children. Not just in science lessons either, but everyday in many areas.
I don't claim to have it all worked out, or to necessarily take the "7 day creation" story entirely literally. But I do consider many aspects of contemporary evolutionary hypothesising to be quite irresolvable with certain Biblical issues fundamental to the Christian faith. Humans being considered "just another mammal", and "things happening by accident" are not reconcilable with Christian beliefs.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
"Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional"?
Nothing about the stickers promoted Creationism. Criticizing one argument is not promoting another.
The sticker reads:
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
What inside that quotation gave you the idea it was promoting Creationism? It just says exactly what is the truth: Evolution is a theory - not a fact. It cannot be proven. Neither can the flipside, but neither should be returned as fact, then. It doesn't put down evolution either, as it says it should be "approacted with an open mind."
Use your head next time you manufacture a misleading headline.
I'm not sure if the parent post is trolling as the mods seem to think, but I certainly agree that what was taught as "evolution" in my high school biology class was crap. In fact, I think poor teaching of evolution in high schools is a strong reason for the rise of creation "science".
You really can make a logical attack on what I was taught in high school, from the downright wrong ("Humans are the peak of evolution", "Evolution results in better organisms over time") to the so over-simplified as to be effectively wrong ("Evolution proceeds ny a combination of mutation and selection"). It's sad, really, but then I was also taught the Bohr atom one year without any caveats that it wasn't the current theory.
At least should teach that the word "evolution", as used by biologists, means "a change in statistical distribution of alleles in a population over time", which is constantly observered in the field and in the lab. And especially what the word "theory" means to science (i.e., that "just a theory" is oxymoronic at best)!
If anyone bothered to teach evolution as current understood by science, I don't think creation science" could get off the ground. Most of its attacks are against ideas still taught in high schools that no biologist in the field believes.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Why the should a science class give equal time to non-scientific, religious dogma? Creationism has nothing to do with science. What's next? Complaining that the schools are explaining that the tsunamis were caused by plate techtonics rather than "God's will"? Do you think that churches should be required to give equal time to teaching evolution?
I don't think this label really does promote creationism. All it says is that evolution is being taught as a theory, not a fact.
Stephen J. Gould Excerpted from Discover Magazine (May, 1981).
The theory of evolution is one of the strongest and best supported (by evidence) theories in all science. Evolution is, for all practical purposes, a fact. Biologists consider evolution to be a fact in much the same way that physicists do so for gravity.
I don't think this label really does promote creationism. All it says is that evolution is being taught as a theory, not a fact.
What the sticker does is repulsive. It preys on the ignorant who don't understand the scientific
I think the biggest problem people have with any 'unresolved aspects of evolution' is when you talk about macroevolution. That is evolution of new species from old, or diversification of species from a common root. I have a feeling few contest microevolution, which is the adaptation of a single species to changing environmental conditions.
The manner in which macroevolution happens, if it happens, is in question. Is it random mutation that just happens to beat all odds and propogate as 'good' and 'desirable'? Is it geographically seperated and isolated sections of the common species placed into differing microevolutionary forces for sufficient time to cause an eventual macroevolutionary shift? It's really hard to analyse this kind of thing because of the length of time for it to occur naturally (thousands of years? more?). In order to attempt to have some 'sanity', Scientists attempt to create the baseline experiment and control the forces that go into it. Generations upon generations are required to even see if you can create a new species by evolution. Any attempt to speed this process up is generally met with a response similar to yours, that it was unduely influenced by the scientific process.
Because of the length of time an experiment of this nature would have to run, I sadly don't see this being proven any time soon.
That's an interesting interpretation. To apply it here, couldn't you say that "by denigrating the idea that Linux is a derivative of SCO, Slashdotters appear to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative operating system, Microsoft Windows or variations thereof, even though the website does not specifically reference any alternative operating systems." (At least not in the anti-SCO tirades.)
I'm not sure that this qualifies as "a bit of sense in the courts," so much as broad and overreaching leglislation by fiat. Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Carthago delenda est!
Some of the RNA analysis of viruses I've seen, when viewed with the mindset of an assembly coder, makes me fervently hope there is no god creatinging these things. ;)
RNA is interpreted in triples, but in some viruses the same string of RNA is functional both with an offset of 0 and an offset of 1 - overlapping op codes! I believe there are cases where there are 3 protiens encoded with the same string of RNA by overlapping at different offsets.
I can only hope this is the product of evolution, I'm *sure* I don't want to meet anyone who writes code like that!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Evolution is a theory.
;) There is no such thing as "just a theory" in science. Theory is as good as it gets. Some theories are called "laws", but the distinction is not one of credibility: a law is usually a theory that can be concisely stated.
Gravity is a theory.
Electromagnitism is a theory.
You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
Some theories are more credible than others, having made more predictions which turned out to be true, and having larger piles of evidence behind them.
Evolution and general relativity are problably the two best-tested and most predictive theories in all of science. It doesn't get any more credible.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Given enough time, the Catholic Church always doe a good job of rationalizing their beliefs to the evidence of the day. And it's completely worth pointing out both that actual evidence of ape-to-man evolution is somewhat lacking, and that this has very little to do with the theory of evolution as a whole, or of the somewhat seperate theory of origin by common ancestry, both of which have giant mountains of evidence.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
What exactly is the relevance of you being an engineer? Does that somehow qualify to speak on the mechanics of evolution? Your shortcomings in understanding biological evolution are just that. Sorry to be hard on you, but you hear this kind of thing so often. Being an expert in one area does not mean you have the slightest clue in another.
Apparantently some ./ people can't handle their belief systems being challenged.
I would love for God to come down and tell everyone that yes The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is basically correct, that the Bible is a collection of bed-time stories for humans who were not capable of understanding much at the time.
"Imagine trying to explain cellular division, DNA and reproductory process to a bunch of illiterate sheep herders! Of course I made the world that way - But even worse, you haven't let go of that old book and made any progress! You can fly to the moon now, created supercomputers and digital watches - Get a life! Move on"!
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." ~The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Yeah, right.
Now you seem to have misread my comment as well. I did not say that creationism merited equal time, nor did I mean it. What I said was that the sticker on the books was an answer to the criticisms of parents who felt that the book should give equal time to creationism. The nether sticker itself or the book give equal time to creationism. The sticker merely says that evolution is a scientific theory that students, whatever their beliefs, should consider. The sticker it trying to clarify that the book is teaching science, instead of teaching religion.
The sticker does not "prey on on the ignorant who don't understand the scientific meaning of the term theory." The sticker's use of the word theory is appropriate, and is not derogatory. Just because Stephen J. Gould from Discover want's to be able to say that evolution is a fact because of the term theory's supposed vernacular is unpalatable doesn't mean that it's wrong to say evolution is a theory.
In general, finding two living species, one which evolved from the other, is extremely rare. No living primate species is throught to have evolved form any other living primate species, for example.
However, quite a few intermediate hominid fossils have been found, dozens of species somewhere between ape and man. Only humans and neandertals seems to have made brain-power really work for them as a survival edge, AFAIK.
Of course, judging intelligence based on brain size and the occasional tool found might not be the best approach, but it's what we have to work with.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The answer is surprising simple.
The halfway points typically survived longer than any living primate species has survived so far. There are a bunch of hominids, apes, monkeys, and so on that had a nice 30000-50000 year run as a species. Many living species are younger than that.
WHen looked at from a geological time scale, regional climates have frequent radical changes. New species tend to displace old species when that happens.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"Microevolution" and "Macroevolution" are not scientific terms.
There is a theory of "evolution", which says "the statistical distribution of alleles in a population changes over time". This is witnessed as frequently as gravity. There can be no rational doubt.
There is the "cladistic theory of taxonomy", often called "common origin". It predicts that all existing species can be orginized by postulating a tree of common ancestors. All features of all species can be described this way. This theory, along with General Relativity, are the most predictive theories man has ever come up with. There are millions and millions of data points for this theory: it requires, for example, that all species with a common ancestor have the same solution to the same problem. No vertibrates with insect eyes, no mammels with feathered wings, and so on.
The early objection to the theory of common ancestry was "God would never alow a species to become extinct". Finding dinosaur fossils pretty much quenched that objection. The discovery of genetics was a wonderful corroboration of the theory - a mechanism for passing down traits was not proposed by the theory at first. Every extinct species found as a fossil is a bit of evidence, but the theory isn't based on fossils, it's based on the postulate that similar living species must share certain features, or they couldn't possibly have a common ancestor. Millions of species have been discovered since the theory was postulated, and every one has been consistant.
The third hypothesis sometimes lumped in with evolution is the "abiotic genisis of life". Unliving chemicals sometime in the past became living chemicals. This is right up there with the hypothesis that extra-terrestrial life exists. Sure, there's no evidence anywhere that it's not true, and theres no logical reason that it couldn't be true (heck, I believe both hypotheses), but there is exactly 0 actual evidence.
Sometimes people argue that "micro evolution" couldn't produce new species, but then by some definitions of species (those used by scientists who study bacteria, for example) evolution of new species is observed constantly. That argument only holds water by restricting itself to cases where man just hasn't been around long enough to have made the observation.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Make up your mind.
Is the sticker an issue of "fact" or "acceptance".
You say one thing and mean the other.
That is why removing it was the right thing to do. The words used were "technically" correct, and gave a completely different meaning in context.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
I've NEVER used Calculus outside of college. It's all academic mumbo-jumbo. Quit acting all high-and-mighty about it. I have far more respect for plumbers than mathematicians.
You do realise that the engineers that designed the circuits in that computer you're using, could not have done their job without that "academic mumbo-jumbo" that is calculus.
And, of course, computers, or indeed any electrical technology more advanced than a lightbulb, could not have been designed without mathematics and mathematicians.
However, I do realise you're an ignorant troll, so I doubt my words will have much effect.
Why are the religious so afraid of questioning their faith?
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
I'll back him up on this. Being an engineer means that he has a very good grasp on procedure for experimentation and requiremensts for declaring validity of a theoretical model. Unlike research scientists who lose some reputation of they are wrong, engineers can cause monetary losses in the $US 10^6-9 range along with loss of human life if they make an inaccurate model. As a result, engineers care in an "I may get fired, destroy my company, and have this tragedy resting on my conscience the rest of my life" way about experimentation that many scientists just don't.
Considering that his comment largely dealt with experimental procedure and the intractability of proving evolutionary theory, I'd say that he's at least as qualified to discuss it (absent specific details about cases and their results) as any other scientist in this public forum. Before you declare him clueless out of hand, re-read his comments about the procedural methods required for proof of evolution and compare them to the so-called "soft" sciences of human behavior and psychology. "Hard" science researchers frequently question the validity of behavioral studies because of the same issues that LinuxParanoid cited: namely, small sample size, experimental procedure affecting the study results, and intractability of proper longitudinal studies.
Your hostile response makes it sound like he's struck you too close to the mark. Just because you don't like hearing it doesn't mean he's wrong.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
Quite a bit of bacterial DNA/RNA has been directly observed to have "shown up magically" because the envirnment changed. The mechanism of "mutation and selection" actually describes bacterial evolution pretty well. Bacteria evolve new species all the time (by the definition of species used by those who work in that field).
The existing strains gaining dominance once things change to give them that edge is certainly true, but so is it true that totally new, random sequences of DNA/RNA appear due to mutation. These become the existing strains that but that bacteria at a disadvantage, unless everything changes before the mutation gets selected out.
This is all very wel understood for bacteria, and constantly observed in the lab and in the "wild". Evolutionary leaps happen every day. There are entire medical technologies based on the theory.
Complain about evolutionary leaps in mammels if you have to, but as far as bacteria go, you're dead wrong.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
As an engineer watching this debate
I'm an engineer too. So what?
it'd be whether you agree with my distinction between a rational method and a scientific method.
Yes. However you are incorrect about evolution being analyzed by rational methods.
If you read the decision, the court spends most of the time explaining why the sticker *is* constitutional. However, the sticker still failed the test. Here's one reason why:
--
In this case, the Court beleives that an informed, reasonable observer would interpret the Sticker to convey a message of endorsement of religion. That is, the Sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the Sticker sends a message to those who beleive in evolution that they are political outsiders. This is particularly so in a case such as this one involving impressionable public school students who are likely to view the message on the Sticker as a union of church and state
--
Former Catholic? I appreciate your account, and I like newadvent. What made you leave?
Our Catholic Pastor gave us this (paraphrased) quote: "The Church is always interested in finding out more about human origins, but make no mistake about it: humans are no accident."
hi, I like pancakes -.-- -.-- --..
A judge in Fresno, NY ordered the stickers stating that "Big Band is a theory, not a fact" removed from all physics textbooks.
The ruling has been received with satisfaction in the district's religious communities.
That's great :)
Thanks for the link!
If you think about the improbables than you have to think about your own existance for example. The shear fact that your descendants did not die from disease or get killed in some manner over the centuries leading up to your birth is quite amazing.
Then you have to think about why you are who you are rather than why weren't you born as someone else (IE born in 1500AD vs 2500AD) then you are just stumped on how you even begin to exist.
Well the matter is that the universe has infinite time and infinite variants so you had to exist sometime and this was just that time. I have no idea what makes someone exist or even have a soul to begin with, but all sorts of combinations have existed. Perhaps our planet is a fluke and the on average most planets are dead.
Secondly, I would have to ask you: What if you were born into Islam? Would now that be the truth for you? What about other Christians now? Is their book still "the truth".
I'm not stating an answer for anything or saying that you are wrong. I could be very well mistaken. Just something for you to think about.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
The way to "answer" those people is with a stern "no!"
The sticker does not "prey on on the ignorant who don't understand the scientific meaning of the term theory." The sticker's use of the word theory is appropriate, and is not derogatory.
No, it is intended to mislead students by the misuse of the words "theory" and "fact" as applied to the sciences.
Just because Stephen J. Gould from Discover want's to be able to say that evolution is a fact because of the term theory's supposed vernacular is unpalatable doesn't mean that it's wrong to say evolution is a theory.
"Stephen J. Gould from Discover"? Are you serious? If you don't know who Stephen J. Gould is, you have no business discussing this subject.
Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) was one of the best known and most widely read scientists of our time. He earned a Ph.D. in paleontology from Columbia University in 1967. He was the Professor of Geology and Zoology at Harvard University, the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology and Professor of Geology at Harvard University, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology in the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology, and adjunct member of the Department of the History of Science. He was also the Vincent Astor Visiting Research Professor of Biology at New York University.
Professor Gould was known as the leading spokesperson for evolutionary theory. His monthly columns in Natural History magazine and his popular works on evolution earned him numerous awards and one of the largest readerships in the popular-science genre. He wrote over twenty successful books throughout his career.
If Stephen J. Gould says that evolution is a fact, you can bank on it.
But since that seems unlikely to satisfy you, here are some more quotes from other sources:I'm sure that won't satisfy you either, so here's another:
Evolution is a fact and the stickers that said otherwise were wrong, intentionally misleading, and intended to give credence to religious dogma.
4) A causal chain cannot stretch back infinitely in time
-------
Would you say a finitely drawn figure (in other words, it uses a finite amount of ink) cannot stretch on "forever"? Maybe so, but what about a circle? A finite figure with no beginning or end. What if the Universe is such a "closed" construct?
What Would Sutekh Do?
You clearly didn't read the definitions. A law is an observation of the natural world, usually (if not always) described in mathematics. Thoeries are attempts to explain why the natural world behaves as it does, and usually consist of a number of laws or mathematical formulas. The theory of relativity, for instance, has e=mc^2, as well as the gravity formulas (that are incredibly close to Newton's in a non-relativistic scope). Also, laws have a context, like Newton's being for non-quantum, non-relativistic bodies, and Einstein's, which were applicable to our observable universe (you don't expect it to work in another one without tweaking, do you?)
Oh, and BTW, the people who hand out Nobel prizes seem to have concluded that Einstein discovered a few laws, too, and used them to develop his theory of relativity. Note the last chapter, and how laws and theories relate.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer
Formerly $10,000 offered since 1990
I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.
Hovind's offer is a sham. Here is some more information on the subject.
consider the Pythagorean theorem. a^2+b^2=c^2 ... the sum of the squares of the lengths of the legs= square of the hypotenuse of a triangle.
Yes it is a theory, but it is the best explanation for the relationship of the sides of a triangle we've come up with. We've tested it and still it stands. Nothing better, supported with facts, has come along to replace it.
Same for evolution.
Yea we have ID (creationism in a new suit)as an alternate "explanation", but where are the facts that make it a realistic contender. It explains nothing while making a big assumption - a designer did it.
Sure, evolution may be wrong, but it has a body of supporting evidence that makes it extremely unlikely.
When ID has some real facts, science will consider it. Until then, it has been brushed off as BS by all intelligent scientists.
"No, your are misinterpreting something. Newtons Laws are a definition what 'force' is."
No, you are misinterpreting something.
In fact you make the exact point that I was trying to make; that these 'laws' are not provable in the sense of a scientific theory.
They are axioms not testable theories like evolution, for example.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Why and how are two vastly different things, both of which have their uses. Note also that the definition of law includes context. Newton's laws are still quite valid in their context, non-quantum bodies at non-relativistic speeds. Do you honestly think people who calculate how much fuel it takes to fly from LA to NY use Einstein's laws rather than Newton's? I really doubt 1 cup (or less, I'm not going to bother doing the math, twice) really matters to them, especially when they include their safety margin.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
You clearly didn't read the definitions. A law is an observation of the natural world, usually (if not always) described in mathematics. Thoeries are attempts to explain why the natural world behaves as it does, and usually consist of a number of laws or mathematical formulas. The theory of relativity, for instance, has e=mc^2, as well as the gravity formulas (that are incredibly close to Newton's in a non-relativistic scope). Also, laws have a context, like Newton's being for non-quantum, non-relativistic bodies, and Einstein's, which were applicable to our observable universe (you don't expect it to work in another one without tweaking, do you?)
Observations are singular. For example, "On January 3rd, 2005, an object of weight two grams falling in an evacuated cylinder was observed to accelerate at 9.8 meters/sec^2 plus or minus 5%." When a set of observations are generalized so that they make predictions about events not yet observed (e.g. F = ma), they constitute a theory. If the theory is very simple and seems very reliable, people used to sometimes call it a "law," although the term is virtually obsolete these days.
laws have a context, like Newton's being for non-quantum, non-relativistic bodies, and Einstein's, which were applicable to our observable universe
No, Newton placed no restrictions on his Laws. He and everybody else at the time treated them as generally true at all velocities. Subsequent research showed that his "Laws" were not quite accurate, and that corrections were required at all velocities, becoming large at high velocities. But we still call them "Laws" for purely historical reasons.
Thank you for making my point.
The only thing I'll admit to is...needing a spelling checker.
Have a perfect day. 6.2
P.S. feel free to have the all-important Last Word. I'm done.
"If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" --Voltaire
exactly as i just said "as far as we've been able to test it, it's been pretty much bang on"
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Hm, that gives me an idea.
Im going to make some wallet-sized
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
stickers of my own. And whenever I see a Bible, Im going to help "encourage critical thinking."
Brown vs. The Board of Education forced integration of schools. The majority of people (that is, whites) in the South were against it. That does not make seperate schools for blacks and whites, or the concept of "seperate but equal", right.
Progress - social, scientific, and otherwise - is often made against the wishes or beliefs of the majority. Occassionally it needs to be legislated, or defended in the courts. That does not make the "will of the people" - often an ignorant mass - right or correct.
> People don't understand calculus
And creationists don't understand evolution (or are just too stubborn to accept it).
> People don't like thier kids being taught something they don't believe to be true themselves
I don't believe in Calculus. Therefore, since I am an idiot, NO ONE should be able to learn about Calculus. That argument falls flat on its face.
There seem to be two general sorts of responses here:
1. Evolution IS just a theory, so what's the problem?
2. Evolution has been observed, so it IS fact, and the sticker is wrong.
The fact vs theory debate has been beaten to death by other posters, but questioning the statement by itself is insufficient. The question must be taken in context of the content of the book. If the book is truly written in a "this is all fact" manner, then the sticker is correct (or at least plausable)--even the most pro-evolution scientist will readily admit that not everything evolution-related is fact (though it's damn well-supported theory).
That the same can be said for any physical science is irrelevant, and that the motivations of the sticker proponents are dubious is also irrelevant. There's a wide gap between "take this evolution thing with a grain of salt" and "this is a load of crap but we're forced to teach it to you. Praise Jesus!"
The whole sticker thing may be a supremely dumb waste of time and resources, but unconstitutional? If a case could be reasonably made that the book's wording miscategorizes evolution fact (observed speciation, etc.) with evolution theory, then there is no constitutional question here.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana." --Groucho Marx
> why were the parents so upset?
They didn't want to have to explain to their kids why the religion that was forced upon them does not mirror reality.
Bad phrasing on my part, this is how I interpret Spinoza's argument:
God created the universe. This universe is a separate entity (as previously opined by earlier christian philosophers). It makes little sense to assume that this entity is part of the existing one, viz God. Therefore there is now an entity containing both God and the created universe. The root of Spinoza's argument, as far as I understand, is not that there is a separate God, but that God IS the universe. To be fair, Spinoza expressed this better than I ever could, which was why he was one of the greatest renaissance philosphers and I'm not (as well as the fact that I was born about 450 years too late ;-) ).
It's not you: I'm just this horrifically socially awkward with everybody.
>I'm pretty sure if you ask a pretty serious Catholic or non-fundamentalist Protestant if they believe all life evolved from single cell organisms up to it's current state, they wouldn't agree
Whew, good thing that's not what evolution says! Evolution is not a story with a beginning and end, it is a process. Your post is called a straw man argument. Now, there are some people who take evolution and come to the conclusion that there must be one source of all life. I don't necessarily believe that, but I still believe evolution is a fact. Maybe not Darwinism, which is more like what you describe.
What I stated was a simple point: More people have witnessed the divine than have EVER witnessed evolution. You can choose to either believe in one or the other. I don't believe that believing in evolution will condemn anyone to hell, because quite honestly, I don't believe in a God that would condemn anyone to eternal damnation.
BTW, the evolution of behavior is NOT the same as evolution and transformation of one species into another.
Look, a fact is something you know for certain. Usually statements of observation can only be stated as facts when they are in the form "the temperature of the cylinder was measured to be 27 degrees celsius". Saying "the temperature of the cylinder is 27 degrees celsius" is a theory, supported by the above fact.
Consider the following examples:
Fact: There exist a large fossil record which shows species changing incrementally over time.
Fact: Bacterial species have been observed to change characteristics over time.
Fact: Species undergoing mutation in the presence of a sufficient quantity of natural selection will evolve into a form better adapted to their environment.
Theory: All life on earth has evolved from a single spontaneously generated cell over the course of billions of years.
Fact: No amount of quotations from authoritative sources will change the truth of my argument.
It's funny. Here we are on a global computer network, built upon the application of principles of scientific theory that were once opposed by the church, and we're having the same argument people did 300 years ago.
:)
Ahh, progress.
Funny story -- back when Ben Franklin invented lightning rods, the church decried them as heretical. That was until every building in town was safe from lightning strikes except the churches.
I was not talking about science. I was talking about historiography. Big difference.
Well, then stay out of the discussion. The original poster was claiming Jesus cannot be prove scientifically. I was arguing that point.
But there is no historical sources to back this up. Read the entire article.
The entire article is representative of a minority view, which it itself admits. This is why it carries a disclaimer at the start of the article stating that the majority view (among Christians and non-Christians) is that the histority of Jesus is uncontested.
You must be joking!
Great argument.
OK, ask this question: WHO is denying Holocaust and why.
Example. People with an agenda to push are denying the Holocaust. People with an agenda to push are denying the existance of Jesus. Your obvious distate for Christianity shown in your post demonstrates you are not exactly an unbiased source.
Right! Who needs power and wealth? OK, I have one advice for you. Learn some history.
You have to be joking. Out of the twelve apostles, only one died a natural death. Paul spent a large portion of his life under arrest and being transported between jails. Yay for wealth and power for the gospel writers! Wealth and power for the Catholic church didn't come about until long after the gospels were written.
I have one advice for you. Learn some history. Good advice. Take it yourself.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
We aren't special, we're just one fluke in a long series of flukes.
You may be a fluke, but I'm definitely a halibut.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
> Living in a democracy is about taking all opinions into account
FACTS DON'T CHANGE WITH OPINION!
for a good start. There has never been anything universally accepted by all Christians
No, but I doubt you can find anything universally agreed on by everyone. The criteria was "common acceptance", not universal acceptance, and was more to establish authorship (ie: legitimacy) than inspiration.
I don't know what your trying to prove with all those links - yes, there have always been people calling themselves Christians who have different theologies. That's why the Nicean Creed was established - it was a "standards document" defining the accepted definition of "Christian" at the time.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Wrong. People from a scientific background generally prefer to ignore religion and its claims as something that cannot be proven or disproven. This has worked pretty well for a long time but in the last century the issue has been forced on them by activist Christians who feel compelled to jump into the scientific arena and try to prove the truth of God and the Bible. Of course, once they do that they are forced to play by the rules of science. No other scientist gets to ignore the scientific principal, why should they?
Wrong. People from a scientific background are just as likely to have religious opinions as the next person. Just because science has nothing to say about religion doesn't mean scientists don't.
True, but then it isn't really science. A hypothesis has to be testable, repeatable, and independantly verifiable.
Yes, religion isn't science. But there are many truths that cannot be verified scientifically. As I have commented on other threads, no historical data, for example, can be verified scientifically. You cannot look to science as the only test of truth. It is a good test for certain classes of things (as you said, those that can be tested, repeated and verified) but if anything falls outside that range, science can't comment on it. That's not saying science says it's wrong, just that science cannot verify it one way or another.
Most of the people I've heard of who are "mixing Christianity with science" are looking at scientific phenomena and seeing if they correspond with the Bible. That's not trying to prove the Bible scientifically, its seeing if science says the Bible is feasible (not true, but feasible). For example, the Bible says there was a worldwide flood. You can look at the scientific evidence, and see if that holds true. You can never prove the Bible scientifically that way - but you can prove that the Bible and science are not mutually exclusive.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
You condescending bastard.
You have never read a scientific journal. Most of the theories discussed are not proven correct, but merely supported with varying amounts of evidence.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Vishnu taking forms has little to do with creation.
Vishnu creates Bhrama who creates all other life (this is really stripped down) and possibly exclusive to a particular branch of hinduism.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
Please check out all the AC posts that follow my recent /. posts. Posts, strangly like yours, follow most of them.
Proof of such diversity would be the transversal from one species to something completely different without any in-betweens. Why no in-between micro-changes? Because there's no evidence -for- such changes in the fossil records, at all. There is absolutely no "evidence" for the biological diversity on Earth when using the Evolutionary method.
Right!
Except, there is.
We can see species gradating one into the other with varying degrees of granularity in the natural world. Bacteria don't get terribly picky about who has what genes, and as you say, even plants can hybridize across our intuitive notion of species. Other people have pointed out the phenomenon of ring species, where Great Britain maintains two species of gulls, incapable or disinterested in mating one with the other, but which turn out to be gradually related if you follow the range of one species to the west. One species of gull in Great Britain is capable of mating with a close relative to the west, which is capable of mating with a close relative a bit further west, and so forth, until the ring stretches back around the planet and we find the end of the ring of inter-compatibility is that second species. Micro-changes in space, rather than time.
Even if we did not have the spectacular example of ring species to point to, it is very clear that animals differ in many cases by region, and the wider the separation, the wider the difference among species. This was, in fact, one of Charles Darwin's main points of argumentation when he wrote his books.
What skeptics of the fossil record seem not to realize is just how rare it is that a fossil forms. I have read (but cannot at the moment find) a statement that perhaps one species in a thousand has fossilized so that we may find an instance of it in the geologic record. If we are missing 99.9% of all species in the geologic record, it is not at all surprising that we might not see a *perfectly* smooth continuum of change looking at the rocks.
Yet, given the resolution of the rocks, we do after all see a very smooth pattern, enough so that we can form a picture of the story of life over time that is consistently corroborated with a variety of technical dating methods, from radiological processes to magnetic field variations to depth of rock to the evidences of tectonic uplift and subduction.
Everything we know about evolution coheres strongly with the natural world as it is observed. So much so that evolution through natural selection is the only theory of the history of life on our planet that anyone without a religious motivation takes seriously.
I applaud you for being skeptical upon being told something that you find incredible, but rather than jumping to the ignorant assumption that the evidence for it doesn't exist, why not study the matter for yourself?
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
Not quite a straw man argument, however, I will concede that evolution is a process. On the other hand, surely you must concede as well that to believe in the entire theory, one must accept that life started as single cell organisms, and evolved, through many branches, to more or less it's current state. Is that statement not generally true and as accurate as such a short statement can be?
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
And the reason being is this... There is a process already present by which material gets added into textbooks. That process should be followed. If new textbooks are required to be printed, so be it. Adding a sticker whenever an alternative concept arises is ridiculous! Also, I don't think all the people who have been brought up being taught the Theory of Evolution as it is in the textbook are in any way less religeous! A textbook is no place for politics and it should be kept that way. And for that matter, anything that is read in any book (including stickers in a book!), "should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." That goes without saying, isn't it? Isn't that the whole point of education?
Whereas many of the religious sects and branches of Protestantism who felt oppressed or threatened by life in Europe emigrated to America in order to set up religious societies where they did not need to come into contact with outside influences; perhaps the Amish being a case in point.
My understanding therefore from a European view is that the Creationist standpoint harks back to the mindset of those settlers of the 18th century, who were dogmatic in their beliefs, and, rather like the Israelites of the Old Testament, felt they would only come to salvation by ever-closer adherance to the letter of the law as set down in the scriptures.
And as we know from 21st century media, a set of writings, especially those translated from two millenia ago, can be reinterpreted to agree with different agendas.
Those religions that claim to have all the answers seem to me to be lacking fundamentally in one attribute they all preach, which is humility and respect for others.
OK - now I'm confused. I did a bit a googling on Spinoza. It seems to me that he's arguing that creation *cannot* be fundamentally seperate to God - indeed that there is a "Unity of Substance". http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4h.htm http://home.earthlink.net/~tneff/stapnd1.htm Any thoughts?
The anti-Christians proceed by removing reference to God in all aspects of public life
Your definition of "public life" appears to actually mean GOVERNMENT IMPOSED.
I think you'll find that the ACLU is actually your ALLY if you were to read "public life" as reffering to individuals' religious freedom. The ACLU has fought - and won - several such cases. For example one case a student submitted a bible quote to be included as their presonal message in the school yearbook. The school attempted to reject (censor) that message because it was religious. The ACLU fought for it to be included, and WON. The key here is that the school offered all students space for their own messages. The student's messages were were not government speech, and in no way invloved the government imposing anything on anyone. It was the student's personal religious freedom and speech, and it was even to be included in the "public life" of the official school yearbook.
So no, the ACLU isn't anti-Christian or trying to eliminate religion from "public life".
The constitution guarantees religious freedom. Freedom means freedom from government power being imposed on us and against us for religious purposes. It is purely a restiction on the government. It only applies to people while they are acting in an official capacity as an agent of the government and weilding government power.
Government power may not be used to favor any religious belief over any other. If that were not true then others could could abuse government power to favor and promote their belifs over yours - for example the belief that there is not god. You would not want someone hijacking the government to impose that on your childred, would you?
Government power cannot be used for religious purposes. You wouldn't want the force of government being imposed on you and your children for a religious purpose contrary to your religion, would you?
not just in the classroom
God can certainly be mentioned in the classroom, but government officials like teachers cannot abuse their governmental power over your children from religious purposes. You wouldn't want an Islamic teacher imposing classroom prayer on your children would you? And by classroom prayer I mean that Islamic teacher stopping the class a few times per day at the Muslim prescribed times and making all of the students FACE MECCA. Including your children.
Guaranteeing your freedom from that means it goes both ways. While acting in an official government capacity as a teacher YOU cannot abuse that power for religious purpose either.
the Ten Commandments are not to be allowed in courthouses
False. For example an employee there is perfectly welcome to include the Ten Commandments or whatever else that like amongst they personal knick-knacks on their desk. However someone acting in their official capacity as an agent of the government to order a ten-foot-tall stone carving of a Satanic verse be established on the building itself above the entrance. The rights go both ways. That is not "public life", that is an official act and endorsement by the government and imposed by force of government.
(despite the fact that it is one of the foundational documents of our civilization);
It is a religious text, and the decree "I am the Lord thy God" is hardly the only problematical item on the list. In order to ensure YOUR religious freedom the government is REQUIRED to stay neutral on religious matters. You have no more business attempting to establish the Ten Commandments as a government enshined text than someone else has the right to enshine THEIR favorite religious text (and in their oppinion their text is also 'one of the foundational documents of our civilization').
the Pledge of Allegiance is not to mention God; and so forth.
As another poster noted, our traditional pledge of alligance was butchered to ADD that in 1950-something. It was an unconstitutional law e
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
EU GDP data from Eurostat 2004 Q3 figures in million Euros, descending order, plus US for comparison
From which we can see that Germany as a whole has a GDP of 1/5 of the US.
Ireland has the 12th highest GDP in the EU, and its GDP was 1/66 of the US GDP.
So you appeal to evolution-on-steroids in your alternative to evolution...
I believe that evolution does not progress from single cells to apes to man but rather from man to man-prime, from ape to apes-prime, from cat to cats-prime, etc.
Actually, humans (and almost all other species) have far too much genetic diversity to have suffered such a radical bottleneck in the past few thousand years.
How much of that is caused by random mutations?
Ignoring for a moment that this is a disproof of natural selection and not a proof of creationism...
Hypothesis: "blood clotting needs to be so precise that it cannot haven happened by chance"
Data: the chance that blood clotting would have happened through random mutation and enviromental selection is 1 in some in insanely large number.
conclusion: There is a chance and this hypothesis fails observable data.
Now you can say that is unfair because the hypothesis was written to not include "severly unlikely" but I have no way to gauge that or agree with others that what that possibility would be. A hypothesis requires that it's foundations are not subject to interpretation.
Again I implore any ID propenent to give me a testable hypothesis.
Basically put, he said "God didn't create the universe, God *is* the universe." Google pantheism for more details.
It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
Was just quoting a theological notion that is becoming popular among many educated Hindus lately. This is a part of our post-modernist science outreach programme, not part of the regular mythology discourse.
More than mere navel gazing.
It IS the truth;
Great thing about theories; they can be verified, myths can't be.
We have record of humans controlling the reproduction of organisms like plants and animals and impacting on their breed.
We also have fossil records of other, possibly intermediate forms of life.
So we have empirical evidence passed down through centuries of observation.
That doesn't deny the existance of a creator; the universe seems filled with all forms of molecules, and you have to wonder why any of these ever started biological processes and became sentient, if you want a mystery of God, look there.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
> [...] it's a deliberately and grossly incomplete "truth" done specifically for religious reasons.
Certainly.
But it has caused lots of discussion.
I put myself in the place of a student seeing all the fuss this is causing.
It would catch my attention and make me wonder.
I expect many will be brave and seek the truth, it's in our nature, I believe.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Because I hope that it is only one person who has that much time on their hands. It being a group of people would just me a complete and total waste of their time. :)
God created this world. It's arrogance and ignorance of the highest degree for men to say they understand how He did it.
You're partway there. It's arrogance and ignorance for us to say we know how the world was created, period. That includes saying "we know God exists, and He created it". How can we presume such knowledge?
The best we can do it look at the world we can observe (God has proved notably tricky to observe), and come up with the best explanations we can based on that evidence. We call those explanations "theories". They are testable, and must be altered when they fail a test.
There are other explanations, which are not based on observation but on ancient stories passed down over centuries. We call those explanations "myths". These are generally untestable (or have been disproved), but are an interesting part of our culture and history.
It seems that more and more certian parts of America are just like these religous totalitarian states we're fighting against. To ignore the fossil record and scientific method over a book of which the people who wrote it believed the earth was flat is just retarded. We talk down these crazy zealots in the mid east but these people in our own country are just as bad. Of course, they won back the White House. I don't know how that happens. Our federal tax dollars support these people. I'm in NJ and we get less than a dollar back for each dollar we pay in taxes while these other states are on the plus side. They get annoyed if we make decisions but you'll be damm sure they want our money.
Lost in the immediate uproar over the stickers' presence is the laudable cunning exhibited by the newly elected Cobb County School Board way back when they approved the stickers. They put evolution back into the county's curriculum, from which it had been banished for years. They accomplished that worthy goal by compromising on the stickers - which they knew damned well wouldn't pass Constitutional muster. "But hey - we tried!" they can tell fundamentalist voters! Gotta love 'em! :-)
If the "Creationists" want to put forward their point of view, they should refrain from disfiguring other peoples work and write their own book ....
No, wait...
Fact: There exist a large fossil record which shows species changing incrementally over time.
Fact: Bacterial species have been observed to change characteristics over time.
Therefore, the process of evolution is a fact.
Fact: Species undergoing mutation in the presence of a sufficient quantity of natural selection will evolve into a form better adapted to their environment.
That is Darwin's theory of natural selection, which you have now called a fact. It is still a theory in the strict scientific sense of the term and there are other (non-exclusive) theories. One is "punctuated equilibria", a theory set forth by Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge in the early '70s. Another theory of evolution is called "genetic drift", "neutralism" or "nonadaptive evolution". I won't waste space and your time by summarizing them here since you no doubt know how to use Google should you be curious about those theories.
Theory: All life on earth has evolved from a single spontaneously generated cell over the course of billions of years.
The generally taught "Theory of Evolution" holds that all life on Earth evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.
Fact: No amount of quotations from authoritative sources will change the truth of my argument.
An argument is neither true nor false. It is either without flaw or flawed. You are thinking of conclusions, and when most authoritative sources indicate that your conclusions are wrong, your conlusions probably are wrong. It's your job to come up with an argument which supports your conclusions and proves those authoritative sources wrong.
Let us go back to the wording of the Cobb County sticker: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
Note that the stickers do not read "This textbook conains material on Darwin's theory of natural selection." Instead, they are designed to make it sound like there is doubt about whether the process of evolution takes place, something that all reputable scientists now accept as fact.
Natural selection is a theory. Punctuated equilibria is a theory. Genetic drift is a theory. But evolution is a fact.
I also vote against that 'dept' headline.
It really isn't the church versus science, here. It's one valid paradigm, atheism, that obviously and unfairly has legal-political backing, versus another valid paradigm, theism, that is being championed at this time by the church. Neither is a matter of science, rather personal experience, faith and philosophy.
Those who believe in God should not be called unscientific, as your headline did, because they interpret the universe that way. Those believe in 'no God' should not be called scientific because they have chosen that paradigm. 'All we are saying is...' students, especially children, should not have their paradigm predetermined for them by school textbooks. The theory of evolution as taught in schools proceeds from and leads back to an atheistic paradigm. (Loud cries of protest! Yes I hear you, and disagree.) This is why there is a necessity to emphasise that it is merely an option. If a creationist theory was taught it would need the same disclaimer. Origins science has huge implications for your worldview. It's too important an issue to let one paradigm override another mistakenly using the word 'science' as a club.
Jedis are stupid. If they were so powerful, why couldn't they handle counseling for a kid who missed his mom?
What? It's a fact simply because authoritative sources say so? I have submitted my argument that evolution is theory and not fact, and you have merely responded with contradictions put fourth by authoritative sources. You have yet to submit a counter argument. By definition, the theory of evolution is a theory. No number of authoritative sources may change this fact. Most simply argue that it must be fact since they believe in it's truth so strongly. But that does not change the fact that is only a theory. At best we may be able to prove that it is possible that life on earth evolved from a few simple organisms. It is unlikely we will ever be able gather data which will prove all life on earth evolved in such a manner.
Furthermore, "Species undergoing mutation in the presence of a sufficient quantity of natural selection will evolve into a form better adapted to their environment" is a fact since it can be mathematically proven. I was not referring to animal species, or plant species, merely the generic term species to represent a unique mathematical quantity.
It's not a fact simply because you, with no credentials or authority, say that it is not? Gee, Bob, who should I believe? Some of the most respected scientists of our time or some guy on Slashdot who thinks that Stephen J. Gould was a guy "from Discover"?
I have submitted my argument that evolution is theory and not fact, and you have merely responded with contradictions put fourth[sic] by authoritative sources.
No, you have not submitted an argument. You have made assertions with no logical arguments supporting them.
You have yet to submit a counter argument.
That is a bald-faced lie and here are some examples:
and
I was not referring to animal species, or plant species, merely the generic term species to represent a unique mathematical quantity.
Yeah. Right. Except that the word "species" doesn't mean "a unique mathematical quantity" and, even if it did, that meaning would have nothing to do with biological evolution, which is what we are (supposedly) discussing.
You are now just wasting my time. You refuse to debate any points that I make and even have the nerve to claim that I never made them. You claim that the most respected scientists are wrong but provide no logical refutation of their claims. Now you are redefining words and making absurd statements about things being "mathematically proven."
If you want to debate in an intellectually honest manner, then I'm happy to participate. Otherwise, I have better uses for my time and mental energy.
Typical Creationist behavior: post a huge whine about how nobody will read your huge whine, then chicken out when someone actually responds. Low intelligence, low courage, low ethics, what doesn't Creationism lack?
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
Your wrong. I believe in god and that science is the best method for understanding the natural universe. Buddhism covers the spiritual. So religion and science can play well together.
"Theory: All life on earth has evolved from a single spontaneously generated cell over the course of billions of years."
Please cite the page number of the textbook which states this. As a scientist, I would like to write to the author(s) to correct this mistake, as no honest scientist anywhere would ever spout such drivel.
Don't feel bad if you can't produce a page number. I know you're just pulling these ideas out of your ass. It's OK, really.
"I could not see how the required complexity could possibly be achieved without a guiding intelligence."
The wonderful thing about science is that its validity isn't affected one bit by what anyone believes.
I propose a simple test for you. Give your heart and mind to Jesus and you will feel his presence as he guides your life. He is always with you, whether you deny his existence or not, and he will always love you and guide you, no matter how you try to deny him or test his existence.
Why?
I mean it, please answer that question first. Surely there must be a reason why you advice me to do that kind of thing.
You seem to imply that I would get "good things" (love and guidance) out of it. Isn't it impure to devote yourself to something spiritual only in the hope of some kind of rewards?
BTW, the evolution of behavior is NOT the same as evolution and transformation of one species into another.
Clearly not, but the same evolutionary mechanism is at work. Fruit flies are simple beings. They are not intelligent enough to build schools and teach their offspring on how to behave in a certain way. Thus their behavior has to mirror their physical abilities.
There is some variance on the physical capabilities of an individual fly. If you kill off those which are slowest (due to some reason), you end up with those which are fast. And they are likely to get more and more faster, if you always kill off the slower ones. The "fastness" as a quality comes from many things, perhaps the wing structure. Eventually the whole population would have the gene(s) which makes e.g. the wing structure suitable for very fast flight. And then this "evolution of behavior" is in fact evolution of the entire species, with a millionth of a baby-step.
As for observing the evolution into another species, unfortunately the human lifespan is a maximum of about 126 years or so, which is too little a time to spot any such evolutionary changes, i.e. to see one species starting to transform into another species, no matter how hard you look. There just isn't enough time.
You have to rely on something which lasts longer than human lifetime, i.e. recorded history. And things like fossils.
Evolution into another species is not a discrete jump, as in "today a monkey, tomorrow a human". It's a gradual, very, very, very slow process of transformation. Think of a plant growing. If you keep on staring at a young palm, you would say "it's not growing, it is as it is". But in reality it's growing all the time. If you were to compare the palm now and 30 years from now, you would clearly see the difference. Yet at first you would say that nothing is changing.
PS. If I were to devote myself fully to something, it would be the ideas expressed by a man, but not the man itself.
I do not moderate.
She replied only, "Thank you for your input."
Rand's novels are all just endless jerkfests for people disappointed about all this "equal rights" crap.
The Daodejing doesn't urge its followers to become, ahem, 'pussies'; it urges them to be considerate and careful in their actions.
(Daodejing, Merel's interpolation)
The near entirety of the Daodejing is devoted to explaining how to change one's condition without forward action or aggression. By no means does it encourage anyone to submit to oppression.
The only correct answer to "Who is John Galt?" is "Someone who needed to get laid a bit more."
Maybe we should place a warning label on your shirt as well: Caution, due to certain quantum theories, this person may or may not exsist. Please keep an open mind and use caution not to accept his existsence blindly.
Then they would collapse the probability waveform by reading it.
You can't take the sky from me...
Where's the part where you accuse the other side?
You only accuse non-religious people of bashing and cowardice: Not a word on the other side of the medal.
You can't take the sky from me...
My point is that if I choose not to believe in science it doesn't matter what you prove. And theory and proof are similar in that they are both predicated on givens. It doesn't matter how conclusive the proof is of someone just doesn't subscribe to the principles that underlie conventional science or mathematics (hard to do, I know).
They will never stop until somebody makes the
establishing the canon of the bible was not about establishing its authorship, or otherwise there would be no apocrypha written by the same authors as other texts included in the canon. It was about judging (in the 4th century, mind you) which of those texts were written under the influence of the Holy Spirit and which were merely heresies
I didn't say authorship was the sole criteria, but it was one of them. As far as I am aware, the primary criteria was consistensy with each other. Most of the books in the NT had previously been generally accepted by the early church as well.
Today it is much easier to decide what is said under the influence of the Holy Spirit because we have the dogma of papal infallibility since 1870 and anything the pope says ex cathedra (from the throne of St Peter) is protected by the Holy Spirit from all error
Perhaps I should make my position clearer. I'm a protestant; I don't believe in papal infallibility. Protestants take the Bible as their only source of divine knowledge.
What your list of councils basically proves is that the term "Christian" is now pretty much useless. There are such a wide range of religions claiming the title that it is next to impossible to establish any common beliefs among them. And you're right; perhaps I should have said the Nicene Creed was a standards document defining the term "Christian" as accepted by those in attendance.
Pretty much the only way to determine who is a Christian these days is to ask them if they think they are. There is no common standard to which theology must conform in order to make the believer Christian. Christianity is pretty much a pointless title nowadays.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Well, yes and no. Ideally a scientist is 100% objective. But in reality you have to start with a hypothesis and then test it to see if it is true or not. BUT in the evolutionary world of people like Oxford's Richard Dawkins, their reasoning is anything but objective, and in fact commits the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.
e.g. Dawkins begins with the belief there is no God, then finds that evolution is true because there is no God to have created. This is plainly circular!
Evolution therefore becomes a non-falsiable theory because of this logical fallacy.
Karma? Sorry, i don't believe in superstition. http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz
I didn't say that science and religion don't play together. I said that one paradigm or worldview is no more or less scientific than another and it's unfair to characterise one as church and one as science. Atheistic, pantheistic (last time I checked Buddhism is pantheistic) monotheistic paradigms all lead to different interpretations of scientific data. The resultant theories from those interpretations lead back to the paradigms that originated them to reinforce them. What I believe the parents who requested those stickers in the first place wanted was that their children not be presented with a false choice between the atheistic paradigm mis-labeled 'science' and the christian paradigm taught at home.
Jedis are stupid. If they were so powerful, why couldn't they handle counseling for a kid who missed his mom?
Not to mention "dark" matter and energy, superstrings and other stuff which is still kinda dodgy but not often presented that way?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Environmental pressures force them away from the norm, then when the pressure goes away, so does the variation. It's the exact opposite of evolution, it's species-wide homeostasis in the face of precisely the kind of pressure most likely to cause evolution in the classical sense.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
BOC if things happen much too fast, your pet theory breaks just as badly as if they happen too slowly or not at all, no?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The massive body of evidence to which you refer by implication is not real. It is an accumulation based on false axioms. Just recently, geological isochrons - a keystone of long-ages dating systems - were called into serious question by evolutionists. It's not the first time that's happened to isochrons, and it's a long, long way from the first field that's happened in.
When you have mathematicians and biologists calling each other liars and heretics at the tops of their voices in a formal conference, you know you have a problem with your theory - but your religion (Materialism) prevents you from accepting that.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I don't have on-line access to Nature but a precis of the Myxococcus article would be helpful if you can paste one. The odds are very much in favour of the "novel" behaviour being latent or otherwise not based on true diversification.
The nested heirarchies are not a prediction of evolution. If development turns over species as thoroughly as it has to in order to assure that new species replace the old, any vestiges of nesting would be very tenuous. Also against the nesting argument you have situations like the well-worn "macrobats/microbats" matrix, which is usually hand-waved as "parallel evolution", in turn a serious piece of question-begging if ever I saw one.
This assertion has always puzzled me. Do you have time to explain why not? Surely, if a process or structure works in one place a designer would use it in many places, perhaps tweaked a little to better address the other tasks?
With one showstopper exception, specifically that degeneration into subspecies requires no new information.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
It is a fact that there is a lot of evidence that supports the theory if evolution. This means that evolution is a good theory to use in trying to predict the changes in species which occur over time.
This, like any other scientific theory, does not necessarily mean that it is applicable in all cases. For example it does not preclude the possibility species will become less adapted to their environment over time (which could happen given the correct arrangement of random events, especially over a small period of time). Also, theories which try to formulate the mechanism of evolution are only theories. It is possible that evolution could come about by another means than mutation and natural selection (a good example of this is genetic manipulation on the part of humans).
One could describe the theory of evolution as a law (such as the laws of thermodynamics, or Moors' law). But describing it as fact is not appropriate. No one would describe the laws of thermodynamics as facts, while there is a much greater of abundance of information supporting these laws than supporting evolution. There are many individual occurrences where evolution accurately describes facts, but these do not render evolution itself fact.
Your very authoritative sources do not counter my argument as outlined here. Simply saying that the term "theory" does not do evolution justice does not make it acceptable to describe evolution as fact. Perhaps you cold dry to popularize the description of evolution as a law (but "law of evolution" does not roll off the tongue as easily as "theory of evolution" in much the same way as the "law of relativity" doesn't seem as good as the "theory or relativity"), but describing evolution as fact is not correct.
Now, the whole premise of this court case is that calling evolution a theory denigrates it. If this true, why then is it not derogatory when people refer to relativity as a theory? Moreover, why is it not derogatory when scientists refer to evolution as a theory? I think the intent of the sticker was to encourage students to view evolution as a scientific theory and not as a direct contradiction to their established beliefs. This is good because often people will reject a direct contradiction to their beliefs out of hand.
I don't know where you got the impression that was a citation. That was an example I created to demonstrate the nature of theories.
Your assertion that I am "just pulling these ideas out of [my] ass" very strange given the context of my statement, but it is factual. My whole argument is that statement is not a fact (hence the label theory). Thus the appearance of such a statement where it is not presented as a theory would be unlikely to occur in a text book. That would be, as you and I have both pointed out, inappropriate.
So basically, what you've said here is that that statement is appropriately described as a theory, much like the theory of evolution. It's strange that you've chosen to state this in such an offensive manner (then again, it is equally strange that you post at +2 if this is the typical form of your comments), but I'm glad you agree with my argument.
Thank you for a more reasoned debate.
It is a fact that there is a lot of evidence that supports the theory if evolution.
There is no single "theory of evolution" -- and that's one of the particularly offensive things about the stickers on the textbooks. There is Darwin's theory of natural selection, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibria, and the theory of genetic drift. All seek to explain the mechanism(s) behind evolution.
Simply saying that the term "theory" does not do evolution justice does not make it acceptable to describe evolution as fact.
That's not my point at all. The term "evolution" refers to the process of genetic change over time -- which is considered by the scientific community to be fact. When someone says "the theory of evolution," they are improperly characterizing the scientific community as having a single, universally shared, explanation for why evolution occurs.
Now, the whole premise of this court case is that calling evolution a theory denigrates it. If this true, why then is it not derogatory when people refer to relativity as a theory?
No, the premise of this court case is that evolution was singled out in order to promote and/or support religious beliefs. Excerpts rom the lawsuit (note that most references, paragraph numbers, etc. were removed for ease of reading. For the complete text, see http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=17050):
No other theory, topic, or subject in the School system has a disclaimer.
The effect of the disclaimer is the disparagement of the non-religious scientific theory of evolution, to the benefit of the religious beliefs of creationism and intelligent design.
After agreeing to the language of the current disclaimer, but before placing the disclaimer in the textbooks, the Board considered and rejected an alternative disclaimer. The alternative disclaimer was both more accurate and more comprehensive, but was rejected by the Board in favor of the disclaimer that more clearly, and less accurately targeted evolution. The current disclaimer was chosen because it fell in line with the complaints from parents who wanted creationism and intelligent design taught in the classroom.
There are two uses of the word "theory." Webster's New World Dictionary (2nd College Ed.). One is the common usage, which defines theory as "speculation, a mental viewing or a contemplation." The other is the scientific usage. Id. A scientific theory "is the most parsimonious coordinated statement that a scientist uses to explain natural phenomena." Id. "It's basis is factual; its application is predictive." A scientific theory is a "thoroughly tested and well-substantiated scientific explanation." Evolution is a scientific theory. As such, evolution is "something known to occur." "There is no scientific dispute in the peer-reviewed scientific literature as to whether evolution is fact and occurs." Indeed, evolution "is one of the best supported theories in all of science." "There is no scientific evidence that evolution does not occur, and there is a tremendous amount of active research into the details of how it occurs and how it can be applied for the human good." Evolution is a fact. The Board may claim that it was using the scientific usage of "theory." That cannot be true, however, because a scientific theory essentially is a fact. Thus, if written that way, the sentence would contradict itself. Nonetheless, the disclaimer rejected by the School Board does not totally discredit evolution as the current disclaimer does. The disclaimer uses the common usage of "theory" even though the disclaimer is placed in a science textbook and makes scientific claims. The disclaimer, therefore, distorts the truth about evolution and conveys a message that the School District supports the belief that evolution is "speculation" and does not support the fact that evolution is "one of the best supporte
Citations, please. Because I've read Dawkins, and I don't think he said what you said he said. :)
Regarding Dawkin's rejection of any deity, just do a google search for "Richard Dawkins quotes".
The rest stems from that doesn't it? If you a priori reject the existence of anything outside the space-time box in which the universe exists, then only athiesm seems to make sense to me. At least Dawkins is consistent in his athiesm.
So, if for arguments sake you and I knew (say via inside knowledge) that the universe and life was created by some deity, Dawkins would reject it because of his founding assumption that there is nothing outside the box.
The big (and exciting) problem in all this is that evolution seems more and more impossible as we understand more and more about (for example) the cell. At least, that is where the ID DVD was going.
Karma? Sorry, i don't believe in superstition. http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz
The near entirety of the Daodejing is devoted to explaining how to change one's condition without forward action or aggression.
Yes, indeed it do. Which is the problem I have with it.
I'm working with this young man at a martial arts school I train and instruct at. This is a guy who is so sensitive it hurts. Unfortunatly, he is from a family of Buddhists. I say 'unfortunatly' because, although I have met some practitioners of the dharma who are wise, most Buddhists are almost as bad as a typical Christian. They don't want the truth, but merely comfort.
Anyway, my friend seems to have bought into that whole 'meekness' and 'yeilding' thing.
The guy is so shy and unsure of himself it is sickening. What he needs is not egolessness, but ego. What he needs is not selflessness, but selfishness. He needs to stand up and be proud. He needs a healthy ego. His parents and peers would have him strive for some kind of egolessness, selflessness when what he needs is to be proud of who he is, of the spark within his soul.
He is so giving, and so kind, that he is has nothing to give except his own inadequacy. He has nothing to give except his own need.
In other words, the young man needs to step forward and be a man. He needs ACTION. He needs CREATION. He does not need to yeild, but needs to put forth! This whole business of "changing one's condition without forward action" are the words of the sheep hearders who would have you submit and be docile and serve rather than stand up and assert your own humanity.
As you say, Taoism teaches how to change conditions without action or agression. Buddhism does likewise (at least the flavors I have been and am exposed to). It teaches an egolessness, a selflessness, which I believe to be abhorrant and disgusting. Trust me, Lao Tsu and Buddha, and Jesus, had egos. You can't found a religion without an ego. The key is, they had HEALTHY egos. And they did not mistake their egos for themselves. That is a big mistake many make. They walk around with their egos, and get to beliving they ARE their egos. Of course, they are not. An ego, used properly, is merely a tool and a construct. Used properly, it is very valuable. It can move worlds.
But we are not our egos. That is one of the valuable teachings of most religions. But they go too far, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They say, "egos are artificial, so we must throw them away." I say, "egos are artificial, but they are useful tools".
We (you, I, and my charge) are men. Our own existiance should be a thing of glory and magnificence, and it should shine. It should not be the cowering, simpering, 'please help me, I'm sweet, and I am yielding' thing my students put forward.
Taoism, Buddhism, Christianity, you name it, they all teach selflessness and spinelessness. I think they are vile. You could say I am overreacting. I probably am. I am obviously compensating for some sadness or some wrongs that have happened to me. But I don't consider them wrongs or sadnesses, but blessings, for the have not caused me to seek ways to deny myself or to submit, but have caused me to seek ways to affirm myself.
But I digress. The truly insidious part of these faiths is that there are elements of truth in them all. I could go on and on about the truthes of these systems. But in the end, they all end up advocating an egolessness which is defeating and enslaving.
BTW, thanks for the link. I have not had the opportunity to check it out, but I will.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
That assumption was not made nor implied, but was explicitely denied in the article. You are the only one who has made the leap in that direction.
Theres no reason to believe that the 'Intelligence' that possibly created the universe has any compassionate feelings towards humans or is just off doing his own thing.
Irrelevant.
Can't see any needed link between ID and Christianity / Islamism / whatever.
Your confusion is that you assume that ID (that is, "INTELLIGENT DESIGN") only means "the Christian God created the Universe." You just acknowledged that an intelligence may have created the Universe; that's all the more that ID posits.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
They can do pretty much anything they like, so long as they are doing it in furtherance of a legitimate government purpose. If they made some reasonable attempt to reflect the level of scientific concensus of each subject for purposes of improving science education that would be quite reasonable.
Hell, their evolution-sticker rule could(*) have been upheld as legal had they simply presented a legitimate purpose for them in court. There was no hint of any attempt at presenting a legitimate purpose in the news report. If they did attempt to offer a purpose for it the judge apparantly didn't find it credible.
They failed seperation of church and state not because of what they did, but because of why they did it.
(*)With a legitimate purpose for the rule it would be presumably valid, but it could potentially still get stuck down if in application it unintentionally caused a signifigant problem.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Which is not to say that an intelligent designer was not involved. Apparently, you don't know what intelligent design is.
I've studied the entire human genome thoroughly,
That's an absurd statement.
and found no evidence of intelligent design.
That's a thoughtless statement.
You want to impress me?
No; I want to enlighten you to the reality that evolution is not the final word for theories of biological origins.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
You should have learned what the definition of a species is before you began arguing for evolution. Or, more to the point, you should have learned what is not a good definition of a species.
Staph aureus is a type of bacterium. Whether it is vulnerable to penicillin or resistant to penicillin, it is still Staph aureus; it is not a new species, even if a population of it develops resistance to penicillin.
Besides, drug resistance may be reversible. Part of the reason that drug resistance is reversible is that many organisms turn on and off various gene expressions as the environment requires. Drug resistance does not require new genetic information encoded in the organism; the population inherently carries the information needed to resist drugs that hurt it.
DNA, the agent of heredity (as much a theory as evolution is, I might add),
Where do you get that idea? DNA is a tangible object. Evolution is a process, an abstraction. It is an apples-and-oranges comparison.
I know that ID really means that life is too complex to have arrisin (sp?) by chance but rather required an Inteligence to allow it to happen -- but that is untestable, unrepeatable, and un-observable,
ALL theories of human origins are untestable, unrepeatable and unobservable! What human was around to witness the birth of the first human? How could you evolve another first human? The experiment has run its course, and now all you can do is forensics.
and make no predictions about future observations -- so it isn't science and has no place except in philosophy or religeon classes.
ID can make predictions at least as well as evolution can.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
Proof is not just a bunch of assertions, nor is it arbitrary. There is actually a methodical process of determining the truth or falsity of statements; this is called, "logic." Only statements that test true according to the rules of logic are true. What is more, statements that test true according to the rules or logic ARE TRUE. It isn't a matter of opinion. In fact, the reason that you are able to participate in this forum is that the evaluation of truth and falsity of expressions can be tested by machines. The results of these tests are not subject to opinion.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
It doesn't matter what Bertrand Russell believed! It doesn't even matter whether Bertrand Russell ever lived! 1+1=2 even if humans never existed. It is not a matter of opinion; this is an inherent nature of logic. All the Bertrand Russell did was discover the proof. I emphasize the word, "discover." It wasn't something he made up or created or formulated; he discovered a fundamental property of the Universe.
Frankly, if you guys understood logic, you would know better than these statements you are making.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
That doesn't really answer my question. I did start to slog through Dawkins quotes, but then I remembered I wasn't the one who made the assertion. To convince me, you'd have to come up with a quote that shows (preferably in full context) that he began with the idea that God doesn't exist, and ended with something like "so therefore, evolution must be true."
From what I've read of his writings, he appears to have decided God doesn't exist based on the scientific priciple. While it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist, it's easy to decide what you want to believe based on the available evidence. My view is that we don't *need* a god to explain the universe, and Dawkins' writings indicate that's his view as well.
No, they are the same thing. If you understood logic--by which I mean, the study of evaluating the truth of statements--you would know that. They are EXACTLY the same thing. In fact, there is even a branch of mathematics, called, "Discrete Mathematics," in which all sorts of statements (mathematical, statements of weather, statements of conditions, etc.) are all subject to evaluation by the same set of rules. The rules of logic that govern mathematics are exactly the same set of rules that govern science.
Mathematical proofs are easy,
Not for normal people they aren't.
and everywhere. High school students are taught them.
What makes you think that high school students can't know the truth?
The scientific model, on the other hand, does not except absolute truth:
Nonsense! If science has no concept of truth--and there is only one kind of truth (that is, absolute truth)--then it is aimless. The problem that scientists have is that the requirements for proof usually exceeds the ability of scientists to meet them. But, even in theories that are eventually shown to be unrepresentative models of our Universe, the internal statements of the theories can be proven (that is, they are absolute truth within their parameters).
Einstein did not disprove Newton; rather Einstein's Relativity is a special case of Newtonian physics, an extension, not a contradiction. It is not an accident this is so; the reason Einstein could extend Newton's work is that Newton's work is logically consistent with reality.
everything is contingent and can it all be overturned tomorrow if the right evidence is found.
Have you ever thought of what that means regarding how scientists got their theories in the first place? Scientists don't produce their theories by getting stoned and reporting the hallucinations they have. The Universe works along consistent lines, and scientists use methodical, logical approach to model the Universe. Within the parameters of their observations, scientists can produce accurate models of our universe. BTW, that's what theories are; models of the Universe.
In the scientific view of the world, there is no such thing as absolute truth, the closest you can ever get is a "theory", and you can't prove theories, only observe that they match the evidence.
Nonsense! Theories could (in theory, pardon the pun) be proven; only, the requirements of proof are very steep. Mathematics has a (temporary) advantage, in that most of our math is relatively simple expressions of logic. Indeed, mathematics can be used to model our Universe, just as English statements can, and those mathematical models are just as prone to proof or falsification as the English statements.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
AC:You can't prove an axiom.
Who said that 1+1=2 is an axiom?
"Principia Mathematica is the book Russell wrote with Alfred North Whitehead where they gave a logical foundation of Mathematics by developing the Theory of Types that obviated the Russell's paradox. This assertion may become more convincing after a look at the page 362 of Principia Mathematica where Russell and Whitehead finally proved that 1 + 1 = 2."
Russell's Paradox
"In 1913, Russell and Whitehead published "Principia Mathematica," a three-volume set considered one of the intellectual landmarks of the century that began from first principles and developed the laws of arithmetic (proving on Page 362 of Volume 1 that 1+1=2), but failing in the end to prove the internal consistency of mathematical logic and its ability to determine the truth or falsity of a given statement. The project drove Russell to the outer bounds of sanity."
Honolulu Star-Bulletin: No certainty exists in search for truth
AC: What Russell would have "proved" would look something more like...
Pooua: It would have looked like this!:
before we initiate we will admit 3 primitive concepts (this is you understand it without we need a explanation):
ZERO (denoted by 0);
NATURAL NUMBERS (N);
and IS SUCESSOR OF (this concept indicate a number that is the sucessor of another, and we will denote by "a" is the sucessor of "a");
finaly we define the operation sum by i) a+0 = a (the sum of any number with zero is equals to the number)
ii) a+(b)=(a+b) (the sum of any number with a sucessor of other number is equals to the sucessor of the the sum of the numbers);
by notation you have:
0=1; 1=2; 2=3; etc....
now we can calculate 1+1 that is
1+(0)=> by definition (ii) of sum =>(1+0) =>(1+0) => by definition (i) of sum =>(1) =>(1) => by notation equals to 2.
and by this you can know all others sums. note: you cannt say 0+a=a until you proof this is real. so by now, if you want calculate ], for example, 0+2 you must do:
0+2 => by notation => 0+(1)=> by definition (ii) of sum =>(0+1) => by definition (i) of sum => (1) => by notation equals to 2.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
I know Christians who are evolutionists. I also know atheists, who point to evolution as "proof" that there is no God. After all, if natural forces are sufficient of themselves to produce all the life we see today, where is there a need for God? As many atheists have pointed out, the "God-of-the Gaps"--the attempt to fit God into the expanding edges of our knowledge--is futile, if not nonsensical. Regardless of the claims of the fundamentalists, if our Universe really is purely the result of materialistic forces, then God is obsolete, and atheists are just being difficult by making that point.
If the fundies had gotten on board with scientific reality like most other branches of Christianity, we would almost certainly not be having this conversation today.
Instead, our conversation today would revolve around a philosophy in which the concept of God would be, at most, a figure of speech. Christianity would be reduced to a mere social club. For, that is what Christianity is in these mainstream churches that have accepted secular humanism as truth.
However, I am well aware of the fact that Christianity in general is attacked, whether by extension of our connection to the fundies, or for other reasons.
Many great philosophers have noted that people who fearlessly advocate the truth are going to be persecuted. If Christianity is truth, it is to be expected that Christians who advocate it would be persecuted. In particular, Christianity--which demands the existence of a literal God interacting in the affairs of humanity--would be opposed very strongly by atheists and Materialists.
Pooua: The anti-Christians proceed by removing reference to God in all aspects of public life, not just in the classroom or in discussions of biology. Hence, God is not to be mentioned in government; the Ten Commandments are not to be allowed in courthouses (despite the fact that it is one of the foundational documents of our civilization); presidents are not to be given an oath of office that references God or uses a Bible; the Pledge of Allegiance is not to mention God; and so forth.
You're confusing public life with government.
You think I am confusing them. If these ideas are confused, it is not my confusion, for I am only telling you what I have read from the actual works of the people trying to remove Christianity from the public sphere. Government is only the start of the battle; the ultimate goal is the complete disfranchisement of Christianity, so that it dies out.
Sorry, but all of those examples are not just reasonable but necessary. Religion and politics should not mix.
Hardly anyone in this country thought so until the mid-19th Century. Most of the Founding Fathers expressed strong statements to the contrary. And, I will add that the idea that religion and politics must not mix is a morally destructive and pernicious idea.
Separation of Church and State is necessary for a free society in which religion can flourish
Many European have an established state church. Britain is one example. In contrast, at least one of the Soviet Union's constitutions specified the separation of church and state. So, I am inclined to dismiss your statement as incorrect.
-- or do you not understand that a the crossing of religion and government for so many years is part of why there have been general backlashes against Christianity since the Renaissance?
You are mistaken to believe that there has been general backlashes against Christianity.
Fleeing from government-specified religion was part of how our nation was born!
Obviously, there was more to it than what you acknowledge, or those who fled would not have set up their own governmental churches here. The context of your statement suggests that you believe these are examples of a "gen
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
This is like saying that all trees must have been bought in tubs from a garden centre, because it's "too unlikely" that they grew from a seed.
Now which, for those who wish to think about such things, is the greater miracle, and if you like, the greater "demonstration" of "creation".
For my money, it's the Universe that was initiated in a big bang. That is awesome (look up "awe") - inherent in a quantum fluctuation giving rise to spacetime is the possibility of life, and McDonalds(tm).
So the Creationists don't think "God" could do that ? Who lacks faith in the Almighty now ?
people with quite a few braincells would call the entire planet, before life was on it, nothing more than dust.
But then, you are a fucking moron who should shut up, so I guess you wouldnt make that connection.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
people with quite a few braincells would call the entire planet, before life was on it, nothing more than dust.
Nonsense. You screwed up and you can't admit it. What are you, 12?
But then, you are a fucking moron who should shut up, so I guess you wouldnt make that connection.
Do you really think, even for a moment, that I or anyone else reading this message is at all impressed by this? You must or you wouldn't have typed it. That's just sad.
Repeat after me. It... was... a... joke.
You obviously have very little sense of humor, at least where your religious beliefs are concerned. If you did, you'd probably recognize the humor in many aspects of religion. Of course, there's nothing funny about institutionalized pedophilia, systematically suppressing scientific thought and the associated technical advancement to maintain control over people, and other unfortunate aspects of organized religion. From my perspective, religion has done a lot of good, but has done twice as much that is bad. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If religion had its way, we'd still be in the Middle Ages, huddling in the cold and dark, believing whatever The Church told us to believe, and scared to think for ourselves under pain of death after being labeled a heretic.
The next time you turn on the faucet and have hot water, flip a switch and have electric light, travel by jet airliner, or go to the hospital for a modern medical procedure that saves your life, don't say, "Thank God". Thank science instead. Let's give credit where credit is due.
Intelligent design is a theory proposed as a sad attempt by religion to hold onto some credibilty in the face of science explaining that most of the religious dogma that has been rigidly espoused as the truth for centuries is a pack of lies invented to control people. When science approaches the issue using the scientific method, evolution is THE answer. Intelligent design, and the more general belief in a god, are both way down on the list of probabilities when it comes to explaining the observations. Neither intelligent design nor god can be absolutely disproved, but they are unlikely. Both beliefs require faith, not science.
ID is obviously an attempt to cling to a lie by compromise. "All of creation took about 14 billion years, and not a week, like we said? Oh, umm, well... we were speaking figuratively. We didn't mean it actually took a week. Of course the mechanisms were exactly as you describe and man wasn't made from a lump of clay, and woman wasn't made from a rib taken from the first man. But God was still responsible for everything." The creation myth was a fairy story presented as a fact until science finally prevailed and proved otherwise. Now, in the face of real facts, religion is forced to compromise to avoid losing all credibility, and that compromise is called intelligent design.
I won't convince you. Your beliefs are based on faith, and there is no compelling scientific evidence that can overcome such personal beliefs. Sadly, people will believe what they want. Religion will keep telling lies to control people by making them feel they are the ones who are right while everyone else's beliefs are false, and they will be rewarded for all of etentity. Religion is divisive, and will unfortunately continue to cause prolonged wars with much killing in the name of some god. The Crusades, Ireland, Palestine, 9/11... when does it end? It ends when we grow up, and stop believing these fairy stories.
Here's a clue. Science does not accept beliefs based on what makes you feel most comfortable, or what fits best with existing dogma.
One of my greatest joys is seeing a child who was not indoctrinated into the church, who has developed some critical thinking skills, then watching as an adult attempts to convert the kid to a particular religious belief. I love the part when the confusion and disbelief builds to the point where the kid finally interrupts to ask, "You're kidding me, right?" When reason prevails, I feel there is hope for humanity.
People who are immersed in the religious dogma and have been programmed to accept it as their own belief system do not realize how ridiculous most of it sounds to anyone who is thinking rationally.
For now, science and religion should try to stay out of each other's way. If people with religious beliefs are allowed to place stickers on the cover of textbooks that discredit evolution, then those with scien
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
"Proof is not just a bunch of assertions, nor is it arbitrary."
/. got hosed up in some manner. I guess this means logic tests aren't infallible, huh? Almost like any logical system you provide with bad input will fail.
Says you. Now think back to all the things in the past that have been "proven" (like the Sun revolving around the Earth, space being filled with "ether"... hell, the Nazis thought they "proved" that Jews were inferior). Now you're going to say those weren't proofs because there was stuff they didn't know back then.
Well, there's also stuff we don't know now. We are still basing our "proof" and "logic", at the end of the day, on assumptions and postulations. And we keep finding out how wrong some of them are (just ask any astronomer, or any particle physicist).
"There is actually a methodical process of determining the truth or falsity of statements; this is called, 'logic.'"
But any process requires input. Ever hear of the GIGO effect? All logic is based on givens. For example, assume that I don't believe in science, math, or any other branch of "Western" logic because it conflicts with my religious beliefs (and yes, I am playing Devil's advocate here). Assume I honestly don't believe that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Assume I don't hold as immutable that 1 is always greater than zero. Hell, assume I don't believe in zero.
Now, prove anything to me. You can't do it.
"Only statements that test true according to the rules of logic are true."
That statement would more accurately read, "only statements that we perceive as testing true according to the rules of logic as we currently understand and apply them may be called true...without us feeling like giant assholes, which we are anyway."
Anytime humankind is convinced that it holds the aboslute truth in its hand, be it spiritual truth or scientific, is a very dangerous time for both science and scientists.
We have only to look back to the human race's bloody, bloody past of persecutions and wars based on things like Copernicus v Galileo to realize two things: that the standard for "passing the tests of logic" has changed significantly over time, and that said standard is likely to change even more in the future. Seems to me like what you appear to have is absolute faith not only in logic, but the immutability of it. Last time I checked, having aboslute faith in something qualified as a belief system.
Do you think it's possible to extend ardor for science and logic into the realm of zealotry? Do you think that absolute faith in the infallibility and immutability of today's logic qualifies as such? And what do you think Galileo would have had to say about that? History is filled with scientists who were right but unpopular, and whose blood tended to flow rapidly and frequently. Science has just as much blood on it's hands as religion does, due to bad input into the process of logical testing.
"What is more, statements that test true according to the rules or logic ARE TRUE. It isn't a matter of opinion."
Ah, scientific intolerance. My friend, everything is subject to opinion. Life is subject to opinion. Religion is subject to opinion. And yes, even science is subject to opinion. If logic is so immutable than why do so many respectable, intelligent scientists disagree? They're all following logic. They're just not all doing it the same. Who's right and who's wrong? Time will tell. It might take a few hundred years, it certainly has before.
"In fact, the reason that you are able to participate in this forum is that the evaluation of truth and falsity of expressions can be tested by machines."
Funny, I can think of plenty of times where
I'm not saying that I personally don't beleive in logic - I do - but I am saying that the key word in that statement is "believe". All rational thought is predicated on earlier
They will never stop until somebody makes the
No particular reason. I haven't been a regular attendee of any church in almost two decades (weddings and funerals are my usual reasons for going to church).
My wife, who was educated in a Florida non-denominational Christian School, believes there are issues with Catholicism. I do not share her beliefs in that matter (although I am a bit more liberal than Catholic teaching would permit). To this date, neither of us are particularly religious (but we are not aetheist).
I think you're confused. Calculus is mathematics; it is irrefutable. The scientific theory of evolution is not nearly as solid.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
...diversity is not a blanket evolutionary advantage.
It costs gene-space (and hence reduces the efficiency of homeostatic processes) to implement. It potentially interferes with existing, functional forms and processes. It takes energy to sustain non-helpful changes (consider so-far-useless mutations as Henry Kissinger's "useless eaters"). Driving one form of diversity through a population by definition eclipses some others. Replacing an existing population so that a variation or collection of same can thrive is very expensive for a species - way too expensive, in practice, to be realistic (think about Microsoft; in OSes and office suites, they're their own biggest competitor; since they need to grow to survive, they're about to become extinct). And so on ad nauseum.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Ha! Tell that to Berkeley or Hilbert some time.
And actually, the assumptions underlying even simple differential calculus are hardly axiomatic, and could easily be questioned.
All's true that is mistrusted
I agree Hovind's offer is bombast, insincere, and essentially a sham. Unfortunately, the same can be said about most participants in talk.origins
Alcaide's Cafe,
I've never really seen much of a conflict between the two concepts, myself, and don't really see why people get their undergarments in a tangle about it. The biblical account itself seems to support evolution (my interpretation only, blah blah blah, don't get all holier than thou on me. That said: onward...)
If you consider the notion that a "day" isn't necessarily 24 hours, and that's not too much of a stretch. After all, if you define a day to mean one planetary rotation that alone complicates matters (which planet? was Earth always spinning at the same speed?).
Anyway, in the text the order in which things were created is: light, earth, plants, sea creatures, land creatures, humans. I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty much the same as the order the theory of evolution places things in.
bechthros: Says you. Now think back to all the things in the past that have been "proven" (like the Sun revolving around the Earth, space being filled with "ether"... hell, the Nazis thought they "proved" that Jews were inferior). Now you're going to say those weren't proofs because there was stuff they didn't know back then.
No, I'm going to say that those weren't proofs, they were assertions, beliefs, theories and dogmas. None of those are proofs.
As I said before, you don't know what proof is.
Well, there's also stuff we don't know now. We are still basing our "proof" and "logic", at the end of the day, on assumptions and postulations.
Take a class in classical logic sometime. Yes, there really is such a thing. It might be titled, "Classical Logic and Critical Thinking." Check with the Humanities Department at your local college.
If you take a class in Classical Logic, one of two things likely will happen. You will either come out of the class saying that logic is simply a matter of opinion; or, you will pass the class.
And we keep finding out how wrong some of them are (just ask any astronomer, or any particle physicist).
Noteably, none of the physical theories that have been discarded were ever proven.
Pooua: "There is actually a methodical process of determining the truth or falsity of statements; this is called, 'logic.'"
But any process requires input. Ever hear of the GIGO effect? All logic is based on givens.
You need to learn the difference between valid propositions and the truth of arguments.
Proposition 1: "All unicorns are white."
Proposition 2: "This is a unicorn."
Conclusion: "This is white."
The logic is valid, regardless of the validity of the propositions. Though the argument may not model our physical Universe, the argument is still logically valid. By analogy, mathematical statements can be proved, even if those statements do not model our physical Universe. Scientific theories, which are only of significance if they acurately model the physical Universe, can nonetheless be proved either way (though it isn't worth the effort if the theory does not model the physical Universe). The proof we seek from scientific theories is proof that the theory accurately and precisely models our Universe. Thus, it is much more difficult to prove a scientific theory than to prove a mathematical statement.
For example, assume that I don't believe in science, math, or any other branch of "Western" logic
It doesn't matter what you believe, or even what you know. Truth exists independently of humanity.
because it conflicts with my religious beliefs
It also doesn't matter why you do or don't believe.
(and yes, I am playing Devil's advocate here). Assume I honestly don't believe that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Assume I don't hold as immutable that 1 is always greater than zero. Hell, assume I don't believe in zero. Now, prove anything to me. You can't do it.
You are very confused between proof and pursuasion! Proof does not matter what you know or believe; it exists whether humans do or not. What you are describing is pursuasion, a completely different topic.
People can be pursuaded that man evolved from lower life forms simply because the person telling them that it is so is very smart, good-looking and has a beautiful wife. But, smart, good-looking people married to beautiful women could also convince you to buy a defective automobile or give them your money on false pretenses. Pursuasion is not proof.
everything is subject to opinion.
Humans have opinions. Let's say that all living things have opinions. That still would not begin to cover a
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
This, I think, is what I understood about the original argument when I paraphrased it: God and the Universe cannot be separate. This leaves two options: either there is no God and the Universe stands on its own (a more Richard Dawkins perspective) or they are both the same thing and are therefore indivisible. It certainly means God is omnipresent and ominscient, because He simply is everything.
Like I said previously, I'm an atheist based on the evidence before us now, but if I were to believe in a God of some sort, I must admit that the second position might be an attractive one.
This is the bit that is faith-related; we will likely never know exactly how the universe came into being, let alone if there is any why, but I personally cannot reconcile the idea of a non-interventionist God that say, a weakly anthropic universe suggests, and the kind of interventionist God portrayed by religious writing. This is one of the difficulites of the I see about the Creationsit/Intelligent Design position: they can't really decide which kind of God He is.
It's not you: I'm just this horrifically socially awkward with everybody.
I agree Hovind's offer is bombast, insincere, and essentially a sham.
Unfortunately, the same can be said about most participants in talk.origins
Evidence?
> Is that statement not generally true and as accurate as such a short statement can be?
Admittedly, you are true about "generally," but IMO that is because the majority of people "don't get it" and just think of Darwinism. Of course, my opinion holds no sway over reality.
A problem, though, is that Evolution does not specifically exclude the possibility of multiple "starting points." I don't think Evolution can be extrapolated back past what fossil evidence we have. We can guess, but that's about the extent of it, and I don't think fossil records of few-celled organisms are very prevalent.
Gravity is a fact. It can be observed, verified and measured.
Evolution is a theoretical field. Facts can be observed, which are currently best explained by the Theory of evolution by Natural Selection. Like many other empirical scientific theories, it may prove at some point to be correct, partially correct or incorrect.
God and the Bible however is just conjecture. As speculative fiction it does not deserve the claim to be even a hypothesis. Faith, or personal belief do not make God a fact. No facts can be observed or measured that support the claim that any God(s) exist.
Some primative idiots could not explain the physical world around them and choose to believe in some mystical omnipotent beings. These beliefs later evolved into a single god speculative fiction. At some point a best seller was written (the Bible) wherein the authors claimed to have some ability to know the origins of life as well as being able to document thousands of years of history preceding the writting of the Bible ~ again a ludicrous claim by the authors. At the same time other primitive cultures were undergoing similar monothesis evolutions in their primitive belif systems.
Even today, with our well documented historical documents, historians with access to gigabytes of information can not reach back even a few years and write with authority on many matters. Why should we lend any credance to the claims by the authors of the bible? Indeed why should we listen to any religious claims.
Religion was created by man to explain the natural world around him at a time when he did not even know the world was round! Everything was magic! The only excuse for religious belief is ignorance.
Religion should be outlawed. I look around the world and instead of seeing religion helping ignorant people to deal with a big unexplainable universe, I see religion being used as an excuse to kill, to hate, to restrict thought and freedoms. Religion's time is past.
Now if only your name was Eric. /Obscure
Dyolf Knip
Myself, I believe in God, in creation, and all that. But, on the other hand I also believe that evolution of creatures takes place, and that the earth is a very old place indeed. It is always interesting reconciling these two things. I think I'm pretty successful at it.
It is in my view no more strange to believe that God has always been here, and created the universe, than it is to believe that the universe either sprang out of nothingness or has always been. Either one must be taken on faith, you can't really prove how the universe came to be. You can only come up with theories about it. And, I'd rather believe and be wrong, then not believe and be right. How that would truly be depressing for all of life to be just these few years between birth and death. And then you're dust.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
I am not a mathematics genius, but as I understand it, there are people who know how to model complexity. What little I remember of my calculus classes, there are big infinities and little infinities. One can take seemingly chaotic data and find the fundamental equations underneath - and can even deal with insanely large numbers.
To counter your example, look at this hypothesis:
Hypothesis: "Archimedes screw is so complex that it cannot have happened by chance."
Data: The chance that an Archimedes screw would have been carved by wind and rain is 1 in some insanely large number.
Conclusion: There is a chance, therefore this hypothesis fails.
Except... no one, in their right mind, would claim that the wind and rain and sun's heat and lightning and (any other non-intelligent force) could have etched away sandstone or a tree or (anything) to carve an Archimedes screw into existance.
At some point, the complexity of an Archimedes screw is a mathematically identifiable attribute. Tubes are simple geometric devices. I assume that an auger could even be called simple. But a (mostly - there are brackets) free floating auger inside a tube, that fits tight enough to not lose too much liquid, that, when rotational energy is applied, moves liquid, is not simple.
Additionally, the use of an Archimedes screw alters its environment, to some benefit.
What we have is a structure that is complex, and drives a process that is non-random*.
The hypothesis then, must be: an Archimedes screw is so complex that its structure defies simplicity (mathematically speaking**) and its operation increases order.***
Hypothesis: "Blood clotting needs to be so precise that its process defies simplicity and its operation increases order."
Hypothesis: "Protein folding is so complex that its scaffolding defies simplicity and its operation increases order."
These hypothesis are testable, if you believe simplicity can be defined.
Admittedly, simplicity is observed - you could argue that a 3,000th order equation is 'simple'. I don't think I'd want to be on the side sticking up for that assertion though. Might as well claim that an insanely large number is as small as 1, compared to a really insanely large number. At some point 'reasonble chance' changes into 'absurdly improbable chance'. Relying on large numbers means relying on a moving target.
If this foundation of Intelligent Design is questionable, then why wouldn't the foundation of Evolution be equally as questionable? Both have foundations based on an assumption: possibilities of truth, due to large numbers.
Therefore, there isn't really any reason for Intelligent Design to be less probable than Evolution.
So, to sum up, these hypothesis are testable, and require no more faith than required for Evolution, to consider them for testing. They may not pan out. But they are as valid as others based on Evolution from scientific basis.
*Archimedes screws were used to pull water out of the Nile and irrigate. However, if they had been rigged to a constant power source (always on), they would have flooded and drowned the plants being irrigated. The operation of them was non-random, and driven for specific benefit.
**The geometry of the structure cannot be described by a simple first or second order equation. A whole series of equations is required to describe the structure, which if strung together would be nineteenth or twentieth order equations. Or higher****.
***At the heart of ID is the quest to find the spark of life - unburning the candle, if you will. Except that candles are extremely simple compared to mitosis and adenosine triphosphate.
**** Each ATP molecule is over 500 atomic mass units (500 AMUs). The complex contains the number of subatomic parts equivalent to over 500 hydrogen atoms. And then, you have the macromolecules that use ATP.
"The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
One thing about "Missing Links." There have been a few found, but every time (and inconsistently, I have heard) one is found, the Creationists just say "Oh that is a man/ape, not in-between." The inability to cope with discoveries in science and reality is my #1 problem with many religions, I just have the most experience with christians.
> I believe in God, in creation, and all that. But, on the other hand I also believe that evolution [takes place]
> the earth is a very old place indeed
That's good, and in a way, I envy you. The ones I have the REAL problem with are the Creationists who cannot accept that there was time other than the accounts in the bible. The Earth is way more than 10,000 years old.
Sometimes I assume (probably incorrectly) that people are Young-Earth Creationists and not just regular-ole-christians, but To be really christian, I think one MUST be a creationist. Otherwise, you are saying "the stuff about creation is a story, but the God stuff is real." I don't like people cherrypicking from the bible what is "true" or not.
> It is in my view no more strange to believe that God has always been here
Waitasec... You are saying that given the two choices:
1) The universe goes back infinitely since there must be something before something else
2) An ageless being snapped his fingers and "everything" popped into existence, yet somehow he existed beforehand
And you say #2 is just as sound as the other? I'm not blaming you for believing, but that just sounds... incredible.
> How that would truly be depressing for all of life to be just these few years between birth and death
No, it's not my lifespan that depresses me, it's what has happened during it. Life is what you make of it, I think it's silly to need a god to not be depressed. Do you have to do everything "In God's Name" to not feel bad about it? How can you wash your dishes without praising him and the food he put on them (well, you helped a bit, having a job & all)?
Do you think animals "know" God? If not, do you think they are depressed? Or do we get depressed just because we are "God's Children," straying from His Word? Supposedly, animals can become depressed too. I've seen all sorts of other emotions (or maybe I'm anthropomorphizing)...
Yes, your response is completely rational and scientific. Swearing and name calling is definately a valid debating technique taught at all the best universities.
Flamebait -- Flamebait refers to comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage. If someone is not-so-subtly picking a fight (racial insults are a dead giveaway), it's Flamebait.
You can't take the sky from me...
Hypothesis: "Blood clotting needs to be so precise that its process defies simplicity and its operation increases order."
Are you serious? What part of this has anything to do with evolution or "ID". Your hypothesis simply tests if blood clotting is simple (it's not) and that works counter to entropy (as any biological process ultimately does). Not only are you not trying to show ID as a legimate theory, you are restating well accepted data.
Again any coherent testable ID hypothesis needs to be more than mathematical masterbation. Probabilities of the kind you are talking about don't occur on a timescale of 6,000 years and a world the size the moon (much that antiquity thought of the world when the bible was written). you are talking about an engine of change and adaption that you obviously have a problem wrapping your head around. The fact that the earth is over a billion years old may cross you but it is no less a fact.
I do understand logic. I understand your point. But the parent was certainly pointing the truth: Bertrand Russell began his proof with axioms. He had to. Without axioms, there is no ability to prove. So what Russell proved was that, given his initial axioms (probably about the set definition of natural numbers?), 1+1 must be equal to 2. He did not -- nor was it possible for him to -- prove his axioms. Therefore, belief that 1+1=2 lies in ones belief in the absolute truth of his axioms.
This is untrue. Relativistic physics show that Newtonian physics are wrong -- but still very good approximations at low velocities.
Imagine if the president (any president) announced in a speech that relativity was just a theory, and that one should exercise caution before using it. While what he is announcing is the truth, it sends a strong signal that relativity is not useful because it is so likely to be flawed. For this reason -- because of the signal sent by these stickers -- I believe that they are a bad idea.
Thanks for sharing, lucabrasi. I'm a cradle Catholic, but experienced a serious resurgence in 2003. Prior to then I had not been fully "living" Catholicism even though I agreed with it.
How, may I ask, do you define "more liberal", and what are some of the predominant issues for you? I struggled to make sense of certain teachings, and am eager to share my learning on them now. Fire away, if interested!
-gopher
hi, I like pancakes -.-- -.-- --..
I don't know if I want to get into this discussion. It may not result in a good experience. I doubt we will get very far in having a 'religious war' on a public forum. However, even with my resignations, I'll bite.
Abortion. I am a strong supporter in the right of abortion. If you are not, please do not let us get into a pissing match on this issue.
Marriage of priests. Around 400AD, the church started down the path of having celibate priests. It took a few hundred more years, but finally, the church was able to impose the rule of celibacy for priests. It has never made any sense.
Homosexual rights. I believe the church is confusing "sexual preferences" with "moral standing". Then again, the church does something similar by insisting on a celibate priesthood. So, I guess that I should not be surprised.
The Catholic "ritual". The amount of 'ritual' that occurs in a Mass is amazing. Think about it, sit, stand, kneel, shake hands, priest call/congregation response, etc. Other than the priest, does anyone in attendance understand why each step of the ritual takes place? Does anyone wonder if Saint Paul was thinking of this complex ritual when he created Christianity in the decades immediately after the resurrection of Christ? Why does the church insist on continuing with what appears to be a series of yoga exercises when most people can't explain why they do them every week? At the minimum, I think the church should try to explain the ritual (I don't recall any church that I have attending offering classes on the ritual -- but I am not a regular attendee of church).
That's it. I could go on, but I would probably fill up a few pages.
You don't have to get offensive when an answer is presented to you - even when it supports an alternative theory. I don't believe I mocked Evolution or any of its devotees.
Do you really think that you can insult someone into agreeing with you?"The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
I also believe that. Hey! You're an idiot!
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
This is one argument that atheists or agnostics can't make.
Of course we can.
Has no Sodom & Gomorrah been discovered? Was it not charred by a seeming "nuclear type" explosion?
No. Archaeologists have found cities (such as Bab edh-Dhra' and Numeira) that they think might have been Sodom and Gomorrah, but no proof has been found. The two cities mentioned are considered promising by christian apologists because they show signs of being emptied, not because of any "nuclear type" explosion. Of course, there are any number of reasons why a city might be abandoned so it's not really strong evidence either way.
Was there no King Herod who had all the first born children killed?
Actually there's no evidence outside of the bible that Herod (who did exist) had all the first born children killed. None of the histories written at the time mention it.
Was there no flood of any type? Is there no scientific evidence to support this?
Nice try, but the bible specifies a global flood, not a "flood of any type". And there was no global flood. There is plenty of evidence of that.
Was there no Paul?
Was there no Mohammed? Guess you're also a Muslim then.
Now, the Bible may have a lot of unbelievable elements as well (to you).
Such as the idea that an all-knowing, all-powerful god had to sacrifice himself to himself in order to convince himself to change a rule ("sinners" go to hell) that he made himself. It's just nonsensical.
But evolution has a lot of unbelievable (and believable) elements to those that subscribe to the Bible.
That's not surprising.
I believe that Sabre Tooth Tigers existed - I do not believe they devolved into Tigers or that Tigers and domesticated kitty cats are anything related to evolution.
That would be evolved, not devolved. And ignoring the obvious similarity between larger cats like tigers and smaller domesticated cats is just silly.
I agree, Lucab. I'd prefer to carry the battle on private email. For the interest of anyone following this string, however, I'll throw some short answers. May I say first of all, however, that the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paperback book) explains all Church teachings. In my experience, understanding requires faith, and praying for an increase of faith is an advantageous exercise. If we understood it, it wouldn't be God.
(1) Abortion: None of our constitutional rights mean anything unless we are alive. Abortion is dead wrong. Tune in Monday to watch the marchers in DC.
(2) Celibacy is not natural: it's supernatural. In Revelation, Christ marries the Church, as does a priest, in a sense, at his ordination.
(3) Homosexual relations: please see the Catechism. Sex between homosexuals is morally wrong as is sex for unmarried heterosexuals.
(4) Ritual: I liked your description: amazing. Any catholic bookstore will have something under 100 pages that explains the parts of the Mass. Seasoned catholics may well fall short of understanding as they should; anyone can become distracted if they're not careful, to which I can personally attest. The basics are not terribly complicated, however -- remember, it's intended for every person on Earth to participate, so it can't be that difficult.
hi, I like pancakes -.-- -.-- --..
Mod parent very, very funny!
"As I said before, you don't know what proof is."
;)
1) As I said before, even mathematical proofs are useless to me if I don't believe in zero. Seems to me this "universal truth" that you speak of would have to apply to everybody, regardless of belief system...
2) you're splitting semantic hairs between proof and accepted theory, which is fine, I guess.
3) I do indeed know what proof is. The difference we're having is that you are viewing "proof" in a very narrow, mathematical/logical sense, while I'm viewing "proof" in a much broader context as it applies to human behavior, and therefore to human logic.
4) At least I know how to turn my italics off...
"f you take a class in Classical Logic, one of two things likely will happen. You will either come out of the class saying that logic is simply a matter of opinion; or, you will pass the class."
I never said logic is just a matter of opinion. I said that logic is always as fallible as the propositions/givens/axioms it is based on, as it inevitably is. And ultimately, all logic is always built on a previously existing belief system - the part that comes after the assumption can be as logical as you please, if it's built on a faulty assumption than it really doesn't matter.
"Proposition 1: 'All unicorns are white.'
Proposition 2: 'This is a unicorn.'
Conclusion: 'This is white.'"
Thank you for making my point for me.
Every piece of "logic" is based on an unproven premise. Logic is not infallible and fails when given bad input.
It's turtles all the way down.
They will never stop until somebody makes the
Do you really think that you can insult someone into agreeing with you?
Nor do I think there is anyway I could provide enough data that you would accept as supporting evolution. I honestly think that none of that matters to the keepers of the faith and no amount of discourse will change the willfull ignorance creationist show. It was over the top but it is still true.
I would like to have a testable hypothesis. irriducible complexity has been shown to be flawed so often that I will just be repeating myself. If you want to now why irrudicible complexity as you define it is flawed, there is mountains of discourse on why your hypothesis is biased, flawed and cannot be disproven (which any theory based on this hypothesis would require of it).
So you either don't understand the scientific method or are being ignorant of it. I do appreciate your attempt. Please feel free to investigate the theories involved and I will gladly discuss anything and test anything that will forward creationism as a theory supplanting evolution.
All that was quoted or mentioned has written proof of their existence. The cities found were called Sodom/Gommorrah - there was a severe burning - radioactivity of the remains found there.
Mohhamed may have existed. Won't dispute that.
A Sabre Tooth Tiger is a FAR greater species than a Tiger. What would be the purpose of a devolving?
Barring pygmies, which aren't really "less of a human" what other example do have than primates of concurrently visible human evolution?
"Nice try, but the bible specifies a global flood, not a "flood of any type". And there was no global flood. There is plenty of evidence of that."
For you to say there was no global flood at one point makes you an ignoramous rather than a valid debater here.
Guess you've never seen sedimentary rock formations or understand why there is red mud in the Carolinas like is found in Colorado and Arizona.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
All that was quoted or mentioned has written proof of their existence. The cities found were called Sodom/Gommorrah - there was a severe burning - radioactivity of the remains found there.
It's obviously true from the link I gave you that not all that was quoted or mentioned has written proof from their existence. I'm not sure why you would say something that is so obviously untrue. If you had any significant evidence of the existence of Sodom or Gomorrah I'm sure you could point to it, or at least to some apologetics. But you can't even do that.
Mohhamed may have existed. Won't dispute that.
A good try at pretending to miss the point, but I'll help you out. You claimed that the possibility of Paul existing was proof of the bible's validity. I showed you that it wasn't by pointing out that this same argument would mean that Mohammed's existence proves the validity of the koran. Unless you're saying that you are a muslim....
A Sabre Tooth Tiger is a FAR greater species than a Tiger. What would be the purpose of a devolving?
Again you use the incorrect term "devolving". This shows a very child-like understanding of evolution. You think that a Sabre Tooth Tiger is a "greater" species than a tiger (whatever that means) so that a transition from one to the other is a step down. But evolution is about the adaptation of species to their environment. If a tiger is better adapted to its environment than a Sabre Tooth Tiger is, then it is reasonable that evolution will proceed in that direction. There's no concept of "greater" or "lesser" involved.
For you to say there was no global flood at one point makes you an ignoramous rather than a valid debater here.
Ad Hominem attacks don't impress. I've pointed you to a number of the many, many pieces of evidence that there was no global flood. All you can do is kick and scream and call names. It makes me suspect that deep down inside you doubt your own position.
Guess you've never seen sedimentary rock formations or understand why there is red mud in the Carolinas like is found in Colorado and Arizona.
Why would you think that sedimentary rock formations or red mud in the Carolinas would indicate a global flood? Perhaps my mistake is in using the word "think" to describe the process by which you come to your conclusions.
I noticed that you marked me foe. Probably a wise decision; everything you've said here so far suggests that you're out of your depth. You'll probably be happier in the future if you don't see my messages.
I'm unsure if this was a point made in a previous post, since there are way too many of them to sort through, so I'll just get to the point. Creation could have happened ANY number of ways. The Bible cites it being done in a number of days, but since God exists outside of time, who is to say how long one if His "days" are? What reference is being used? Also, just because it says he snapped his fingers and "it was done" doesn't mean that it couldn't have been something that He simply initiated...the Big Bang could have been the direct result of God's creation. It doesn't mention the creation of the Universe itself, only the way He created everything on Earth. He could have easily used what is known as the Big Bang to set the Universe into a creation cycle...it only says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth"...NOTHING about how long it took or the method implemented. Using this, one can easily see that it is entirely possible for God to have used a "Big Bang" method of creating everything in the first place. Not only that, the Bible only mentions how God created Adam and Eve, but by the time Cain was sent out into the world, there were entire races of human beings out there already. How was this possible, and who is to say that God didn't evolve everyone else into being while he scrapped up Adam and Eve from clay dirt? The Bible is extremely vague, if not totally evasive, on those points. Thinking for ourselves and reasoning are two gifts that God gave us. Use them.
As a Bible-believeing Christian i believe that we live in a fallen wolrd, cursed by God because of the rebellion of man. Jesus was faced with a similar charge and you can read his answer in Luke 1
"Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them - do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."
We are all living under a curse and deserve to die because we cannot ever expect live up to God's laws. But, God sent Jesus to us so that we can be saved from death by his lack of sin (or righteousness), we simply have to take hold of that and believe.
Yes, i know it probably flamebait, but be kind, it's my first post.
An example please. This is a common and erroneous claim put forth by Creationists.
Post what you want when you want @ Bouncersplace.com No poofs no banning.
Sorry for the delayed resonse.
I was unaware of this new theological view. I think I will have a look into it as I havent been paying much attention to religion over the last ten years.
Anything out there I might want to look at in specific?
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
Are you trying to say Evolution is a religion? If so kindly elaborate. If not then what the hell are you trying to say?
Post what you want when you want @ Bouncersplace.com No poofs no banning.
"You just acknowledged that an intelligence may have created the Universe; that's all the more that ID posits." So how did they come to that conclusion? Is there any guideling for when research becomes too complex and it is time to invoke the 'designer?'
Post what you want when you want @ Bouncersplace.com No poofs no banning.
I got a question for you. Please give us an explanation layman or technical on ID or Creationisms theory of the origins of life?
Post what you want when you want @ Bouncersplace.com No poofs no banning.
"ID can make predictions at least as well as evolution can." Name two predictions made by ID.
Post what you want when you want @ Bouncersplace.com No poofs no banning.
The truth of an axiom is assumed. More forcefully, the truth of an axiom is a given. It is not a matter of belief, opinion, like or dislike. There is no choice in the matter; indeed, there cannot be a choice, because (as you say) fundamental axioms are unproveable (that is, untestable).
As I said, logic is not subjective. It is not due to a matter of opinion or belief. What? Do you think that logicians actually believe in unicorns? But any logician who has ever lived should be able to make sense of the argument I gave earlier, that is:
Proposition 1: All unicorns are white.
Proposition 2: This x is a unicorn.
Conclusion: Therefore, this x is white.
As far as logic is concerned, I have proved that x is white in this argument. Your belief in any of the points of my argument is irrelevant. And, regardless of one's belief or opinion, the value of zero exists.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
It is irrelevant whether any proof is of any benefit to you or not. The discussion is concerning the nature of proofs.
Seems to me this "universal truth" that you speak of would have to apply to everybody, regardless of belief system...
You might think of logical proof as being analogous to rocks. Maybe you don't believe in rocks, but they still exist and one could still land on your head or even kill you instantly. Your believe system is irrelevant.
2) you're splitting semantic hairs between proof and accepted theory, which is fine, I guess.
Far from splitting hairs, the difference between proof and accepted theory is my point.
3) I do indeed know what proof is.
You show no evidence of that. Indeed, what you say contradicts your claim.
The difference we're having is that you are viewing "proof" in a very narrow, mathematical/logical sense,
That is the only kind of proof there is when it comes to science and mathematics. The colloquial expressions of natural language are imprecise. Science and math require highly precise expressions, and the definition of proof has a very narrow meaning.
while I'm viewing "proof" in a much broader context as it applies to human behavior,
Frankly, that's gibberish. You are merely using the word in an informal, imprecise sense, and so, you are using language unsuitable for discussing science.
and therefore to human logic.
How many books on "human logic" have you seen? Can you name anyone working in the field of human logic? I don't believe you can answer those questions, because there is no such thing as "human logic."
4) At least I know how to turn my italics off... ;)
That's nice.
ultimately, all logic is always built on a previously existing belief system - the part that comes after the assumption can be as logical as you please, if it's built on a faulty assumption than it really doesn't matter.
"Proposition 1: 'All unicorns are white.'
Proposition 2: 'This is a unicorn.'
Conclusion: 'This is white.'"
Thank you for making my point for me.
What? You believe that logicians believe in unicorns? I didn't invent that piece about unicorns, you know; that happens to be one of the illustrations that I found in one of my first books on classical logic. Rather, it illustrates that beliefs are irrelevant to proofs. No logician need believe in the existence of unicorns, but virtually all of them would agree that the statement I gave about unicorns is logically valid. Your beliefs have no bearing on the validity of proof; only logic matters.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
"It is irrelevant whether any proof is of any benefit to you or not."
I disagree. Logic owes it's existance in the world, it's realization in textbooks like yours, to the fact that humans needed it to survive.
"You might think of logical proof as being analogous to rocks. Maybe you don't believe in rocks, but they still exist and one could still land on your head or even kill you instantly."
Unless I don't think it's a rock, I think it's the evil god Meepzork smiting me for chronic masturbation. Then I don't know it's a rock, no matter how much you "prove" it to me.
"Your believe system is irrelevant."
Only to you.
"Far from splitting hairs, the difference between proof and accepted theory is my point."
That's what I'm saying - you're talking about pure, abstract logic divorced from reality or practical application. And that's fine, pure theory is necessary. I'm talking about people's perception of the givens underlying any logic. My original point that started this whole argument was that logic is only as good as the givens it's based on, any logic proceeding from flawed information is therefore flawed. Which you put much more succinctly with this example:
"Proposition 1: 'All unicorns are white.'
Proposition 2: 'This is a unicorn.'
Conclusion: 'This is white.'"
Which is exactly what I was saying - everybody knows there's brown, yellow and black unicorns as well as white ones, so the logic following from it is flawed. Everybody also knows that what the observer is looking at is most probably not a unicorn, so the logic following from it is flawed from the other direction as well. To me it's a perfect example.
"You are merely using the word in an informal, imprecise sense, and so, you are using language unsuitable for discussing science."
Sue me. Words are imprecise things and so are people. I never claimed to be a scientist, a logician, or even as well-educated as you. Besides, I'm sure you don't know the difference between balanced and unbalanced consoles, or how to read figured bass notation. So let's not play that game.
"there is no such thing as "human logic."
Bullshit. Human logic is logic as it's executed by humans, just as machine logic is logic as it's executed by machines. Both are applied logic rather than abstract logic, and so both have flaws.
I don't think we're disagreeing about anything, just looking at it from different perspectives and focusing on different things. You're saying (i think) "the logic is sound in and of itself even if it's based on faulty data" and I'm saying "logic, no matter how logical, that follows from bad data is functionally useless".
Eh?
They will never stop until somebody makes the