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
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.
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.
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.
+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...
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.
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
can be found here.
"When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
It's a long way from saying, "Oh look. The color of the moth changes in lab tests depending on it's predator and environment" to "Oh, look. Our lab tests just that life came about because of natural selection."
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
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"
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.
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
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...
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.
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"
"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
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.
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.
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.
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)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
...they've been ordered to cover them with these!
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
It never ceases to amaze me how dogmatic slashdotters are about their belief in science. You put the right wing christians to shame!
Can they reproduce evolution in the labs? No.
That doesn't mean the theory is false. There are observations that can only be explained "scientifically" by evolution.
Atomic theory explains how neutrons, electrons, and protons interact. Does that mean they don't exist?
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
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
"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.
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.
Why not similar disclaimers on all other science texts? One for gravitational theory, one for the theory of relativity, one for atomic theory?
Why single out evolution?
It only states that Evolution is a theory regarding the origin of living things
Actually, it's a theory regarding the origin and diversity of species. Evolution does not cover the ultimate origins of life, and the disclaimer is misleading in its wording.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
Because the intent of the sticker was to deliver the "Evolution is...not a fact" message, not the "Evolution is a theory" message. Plate Techtonics is a theory. Relativity is a theory. Newtons laws of motion also a theory. The creationists want to pound in the "is a theory, not a fact" because they want you to think of it in the same way that The sun is driven across the sky every day in a giant chariot sort of a theory, not a this matches all the available facts sort of theory. Just because you believe people couldn't possibily live in Australia because they'd fall off the earth doesn't make it true.
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.
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
lieut data writes: "If you can't observe it, there is no way you can prove it. End-of-story."
m l
To me, this treads danegrously close to the same arguments used in Holocaust Denial. Just because something occured in the past doesn't mean there's no evidence in the present to corroborate or disprove said event.
Michael Shermer gives some excellent incite into these topics, and why "If you can't observe it, you can't disprove it" is a fallicy.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/shermer.ht
"show me all the blueprint show me all the blueprint show me all the blueprints"
That theory is backed by an awful lot of data both observed and learned from repeatable experiments. Damn cultists.
Trolling is a art,
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"?
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.
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.
This does not bode well for my cause...
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?
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?
Lots of people want humans to be special in the universe. Evolution pretty much trashes that. But they are not so conflicted as to take on the entire scientific establishment that produces obvious, powerful things like atomic bombs and internets. They think that they can cut evolution out of biology without destroying the entire fabric of modern science. But it won't work.
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).
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.
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.
Correct, but finding evidence of a trilobites in a human sandal fossil and human footprints embedded in 250-million-year-old coal veins bring up interesting points on why the evolution theory does not change to meet the found facts, but rather the facts are discarded becuase they don't fit the theory. If a physicist threw out facts, he would be ripped apart, but evolutionists are given a free ride to say and do whatever matches their flawed theory.
Plus the discovery of cave paintings of dinosaurs and pottery with extremely realistic depictions of man and dinosaurs together shoot more holes in the whole evolutiontists timetables.
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"
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.
Unless you attend a private school that requires them as a textbook, but attending a private school would seem to be by choice.
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
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
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...
There's plenty of evidence that the earth has been around that long. Certainly the universe has been -- just look up in the night sky and you'll see light from stars that are millions of light years away, so they've been in existence at least that long.
(Or else the light was created in transit... in which case God wants the universe to look millions of years old, so there's no point in us trying to think otherwise!)
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
if the bibles in Cobb county have stickers advising people to consider other belief systems?
... 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.
God is Love.
And Love is Blind.
Therefore, god is Stevie Wonder.
Thank you, I'm here all week, try the lambchops...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
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?
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)
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!
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'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.
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.
Evolution is a theory, not a fact.
Creationism is a superstition, not a fact.
Someone hates these cans.
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;
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.
google up "pascal's wager" - you've made one of the oldest (and throughly disproven) arguments for religon ever.
do you really think that the best reason to believe in a god is to treat it as a hedge bet against eternal damnation?
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
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!*
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
...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.
.... 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.
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
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."
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?
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
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.
"Pray to God, but keep rowing to shore."
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
Some of my bestest friends are tooth-fairies....
You insensitive Clod!!!!
bah!*@%!
...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.)
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
/me prints out a roll of "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact" stickers...
>Evolution is a fact in that we know it occurs and it has been seen occur[r]ing.
can we have some real references, please?
For one, there are some absolutely facinating studies on ring species. Modern observed evolution, incompatible resultant species, and as added super bonus the FULL range of intermediate forms! Ring species are amazing case studies of evolution in action rolled up in nice neat packages.
Considering that ten of thousand years is nothing in evolutionary time, it's pretty big that we spot anything at all on human timescales. Darwin was born only a hundred-odd years ago. Hell, modern biological study really only rates a description of "decades". And anti-evolutionists won't be satisfied with anything less than watching a scientist pull a rabit out of a hat and seeing it evolve wings and fly away before their eyes.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
(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'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!)
Yes, evolution is a theory. So is gravity. Non-scientists use the word "theory" to mean "an idea I just now came up with and doesn't really have any relation to objective reality". As in "I have a theory about that", or "well, it works *in*theory*". Scientists use the word in a completely different way. What the layman calls a theory a scientist would call a "hypothesis". In order for a hypothesis to become a theory it has to survive attempts to prove that its wrong, offer a good explination for observed facts, etc.
Gravity is a theory, not a fact. And again, we see the difference between lay use of words and scientific use of words. The layman uses "fact" to describe both concrete observations and the explinations for connection between those observations. Scientists use the word only when describing concrete observations, not the connections between those observations. So, on the subject of gravity we see the facts are merely the orbits of planets and stars, and the fact that (some) things fall when they aren't supported. Gravity is a theory invented to connect these facts. F(g) = G * ((m1*m2)/(r^2)). That's "the theory of gravity". We furthur embelish this by theorizing that gravitation is caused by a distortion in space. Evidence seems to back this up, but new evidence could utterly shatter our current theory of gravity. The only things that can't really be disproven are the baren "facts": (some) things fall when they aren't supported, and things orbit other things.
Which brings us to evolution, thories, and the stickers. The stickers were clearly intended to use the term "theory" in the lay sense, meaning "some harebraned idea", not "a rigorusly tested explination for a connection between facts".
The only facts in the whole issue are that a) humans are here today, b) the fossil record contains several species that are no longer living. We theorize that the layers of the fossil record indicate that the lower layers are generally older (baring earthquakes and other things which might rearrange thousands of tonnes of rock). We theorize that since the layers show lower (earlier) periods without trilobites, and later (newer) periods with trilobites, and finally that there are no trilobites today that trilobites must have appeared after a time when they did not previously exist. Evolution is the only theory that connects these facts.
Creationists contend that a) life is so self-evidently complex that it could not arise through any natural process, and b) their book says it all happened 6000 years ago over the course of six days. Neither of those statements are either an alternate theory that explains the observed facts, nor a refutation of the theory of evolution.
If you want to get evolution out of the schools (or even just get equal time for a different theory) there is a very simple way to do so: useing the scientific method establish an alternate theory that explains the observed facts as well as (or better than) evolution does. Creationism (either the so-called "Scientific Creationism", or "Intelligent Design") does not actually do either of those things. In both cases they began with their conclusion and cherrypicked what facts they could to support that conclusion, which is not the way science works. In both cases they ignore rather large bodies of evidence, and they have steadfastly refused to publish their papers in peer reviewed journals.
On that final note, I'll quit: Creationists will often whine that there is a massive conspiricy to keep them out of scientific journals. This is not true (or, as we say in Texas: that is a lie). Creationists have never actually offered their papers to any scientific journal. On a few occasions a journal has actually *requested* a paper from a Creationist only to have the Creationist demand special treatment (usually that no one be permitted to respond to or criticize their paper). Since Creationists so steadfastly refuse to participate in the scientific process I can only presume that they secretly acknowledge that they are not really scientists, which means that their theories (in the lay sense) have no place in a science class.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
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 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.
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.
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.
"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. Right. Grumsh hate evolution. It stinky farty poo. Atheists go squish now!
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
--
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)
In short, the Georgia schools can cram it in their corn holes. And while they're at it, can look up the scientific definition of theory, not the Reagan definition of theory.
Do not touch -Willie