Slashdot Mirror
Imax Theaters Demur On Controversial Science Films
circletimessquare writes "The New York Times is reporting that a number of Imax theatres are passing on science-themed films that might provoke controversy among a handful of religious fundamentalists. Films that are having their distribution impacted include '"Cosmic Voyage," which depicts the universe in dimensions running from the scale of subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies; "Galápagos," about the islands where Darwin theorized about evolution; and "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor.'"
...that the theater owners think that showing science films is too controversial or not interesting to the general public...
...or that they're probably right.
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
because this is epidemic of our society in america.
we lose out on interesting ideas and concepts because they may offend someone. it happens in all levels of education, in business, everywhere.
this is sad but not suprising.
how is "an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor" offensive in any way?
we shouldn't let a minority dictate what is right or wrong because we risk having our freedom become the same "freedom" they have in China.
Investing forum
Why do they stick their heads in the holy sand all the time, why can't they just accept that people have different views and should be allowed to express them.
It makes me sick that religious wackos are given all the freedom to worship/teach/live as they please, but fuck everyone else over with their righteous bullshit.
The New York Times is reporting that a number of Imax theatres are passing on science-themed films that might provoke controversy among a handful of religious fundamentalists.
Wake me up when there is something happening the US which doesn't upset a minority group which goes in search for media attention or takes it to court.
bash$
It really is sad that the documentation of the search for truth is so dangerous to some people. I understand in the need for belief and am a scientist that considers myself religious. However, I also believe that there are truths in the universe that need to be revealed and understand that those truths threaten some people and institutions. The task of the documentary film maker in many ways is similar to that of the scientist, and censorship or concealment of truth harms both of our missions. I also understand that businesses are in the business to make money, but it would be nice if businesses could have enough faith in what they do to stand up and be honest about it. That is unless money is your god, but if that is the case, be honest about it. The unfortunate truth is that money is the most important thing to some folks and they also know that if they revealed it, then they might lose business. You are known by your actions and I would encourage those potential patrons of these theaters who are refusing to show these films to boycott those IMAX theaters who are too scared to show a film that documents scientific discovery.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
looking out at the stars at night, or using a microscope, will result in an equal amount of religious disturbance for that group of people if they use their brains to think about what they see.
So i recommnd preventive suicide, it also helps them get close to their god.
Thanks for leaving us alone, guys, just do it!
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
OK, I get the Galapagos and Cosmic Voyage films being rejected as controversial, but why would a film about animals living in a harsh environment be controversial? Don't Creationists have enough room in their ontology for animals now?
After all, I am strangely colored.
Welcome to America, where ignorance isn't just bliss, it's a virtue.
Who will welcome our new overlords, the ChrisTaliban turning the USA into Afghanistan West? Where are the reasonable Christians who repudiate this demented abuse of our country into a market theocracy in their name? ...tumbleweeds..
--
make install -not war
Is usually the distribution chain for these flix right? I have never expected my local 48-gazillion chain to show these flix
"Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
Soon enough American students will not be exposed to scientific methodologies and theory because of the complains of Christian fundamentalists. While the Religious Right will feel their children are pious and enlightened, the rest of the world will progress with our understanding of nature and science. The rest of the world will innovate and prosper, while America will be dragged down into religious strife. Christian fundamentalism will be the death of America.
So we have:
+ Christians who are against science
+ Muslims who are against the West and progress
+ Scientologists who believe a SF story
+ Mormons who believe a non-SF story
Jesus, it makes you wonder....
I recently met a girl who chewed me out for accepting evolutionary theory. I was at first shocked, as I thought that the issue of evoultion and religion had been worked out. Then it really bugged me that she could be so backward and regressive in her thinking. Then I finally realised that none of it mattered, I was being just as closed-minded as she was. What was more important was if I just forgot the differences and found a way to get the project we had done without making a big deal out of it.
I'm not American, so I can't say how much of a real impact something like this has, but I wonder if this recent rise of very conservative religious fundamentalism in the USA and efforts to stop the presentation of things that contradict their view might not lead to the USA eventually falling beind in key sciences, and, as a consquence, losing its edge in the world of technology.
While the situation isn't as bad as that Escape from LA movie from the late 80's, there certainly are aspects of that in modern American politics it seems.
Fundamentalist: People said I was dumb but I proved them.
First off, I am not a religious person.
....as I watch my Karma plummet....
But, this is my gripe with them...
If I had a conversation with one of these people, they want you to embrace their way of thinking... OK fine.
Yet, when I try to peddle MY truth, its immediately too much to handle, so not right and so horrible they wont hear it.
I am in the south. This is how these people are.
but, then they are quick to call themselves open minded. YEAH RIGHT.
If I cant tell you my truth, and have you at least LISTEN, your not open minded. your a closed minded fool that doesnt deserve to breathe air. its that simple.
All I ask of these people, is to meet us all half way here. they dont have to like it, and they dont have to agree with it.
but saying they are 'good, understanding people' is a REAL stretch.
They DO NOT have to go see these movies....
yet, they boycott their presence. thats not open minded... that is just religion attempting world domination. their way or the highway.
Go watch the documentaries. I do.
Rebel against religious zealots.
It keeps happening! The "PC" culture of this country keeps destroying what's left of the free thought that was painfully conquered a long time ago (I'm not even going to go into free speech).
It's a battle on two fronts: the religious lobbyist that do things like hindering the teaching of science in schools, and the large corporations that would do anything not to offend anyone for fear of losing a few bucks.
How do they get away with it? Why don't people say "oh this is horrid, no more IMAX for me". We just can't be bothered anymore: the PC rants (if you say something controversial YOU are at fault), the lack of any real political debates (besides minor economical and odd moral-related issues) since the outlawing of Communism and any other non-majority view, and of course the the vultures of the media that keeps feeding on this whole thing (WHY show that piece about "evolution is just a theory" over and over?).
I'm an European, and I have no voice in what the American people decide to do, but it's their lack of action and ignorance of the issues at hand that makes me heed this warning: how soon until the free-flying politicians and corporations will do all they wish while you're too busy watching TV? You may have these comfy lives forever, with no blood or guilt on your own hands, but one day you may find yourselves unwilling free citizens of what you yourself would name an "evil empire" if you were on the other side.
The cookie told me to.
As a thinking christian (as opposed to the new moronic version of christian) I really despair of this childish rejection of reality (science). Religion has lived with the reality of the world around them for a very long time. I believe now in this time of deep denial about the changing landscape of America and an uncertain future that the more unstable elements in many sects see the rejection of science as somehow bolstering there own flagging faith. A faith that if real in these people would easily be able to encompass science as a wonder of God and not a challenge to him.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
It seems this neo-conservatism is nothing more than some Fanatical Religious front not unlike the Muslim Fundamentalists Washington likes to demonize as the root of Terrorism.
All this crap about faith based this and faith based that coming out of the whitehouse and with a president who openly claims to have a mandate from God... Uhh... I was gonna talk about church and state but, am I the only one here that thinks the President is fucking batshit loco?
But it's a good thing! Really! Lets embrace our freedom to express fundamentalist Christian religion! Lets ban any science that goes "too far" into ethical grey areas for religious pundits to swallow, lets get the federal government to force a tube down a vegetable's throat... it's nice to have a "conservative" government that wants to regulate our way of life. The Founding Fathers would be proud at this emerging christian police state. And if you voted for Bush I bet you're damn proud too.
Apparently some people were offended by brief mentions of evolution in the documentary about volcanoes (it covered the harsh conditions in the undersea vents, and the life there).
from the article:
"some people said it was blasphemous."
In their written comments, she explained, they made statements like "I really hate it when the theory of evolution is presented as fact," or "I don't agree with their presentation of human existence."
Controversy = Exposure
Exposure = Money
Why are they scared to show the movies again?
OK, I'll play the Big Bad Scientist and call Bullshit on your implied equivalence between the theory of evolution and the desperate hand-waving of creationists.
Mod me down for flamebait but isn't about time we stop pretending that these are just two flavors of truth and you have the option of picking one or the other. IMAX theaters in science museums shouldn't show creationism, as it's not science. Commercial IMAX owners can make ther own decisions; it's just sad that they choose to knuckle under.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
They will show a movie like Constantine, which portrays the angel Gabriel switching sides and making a deal with Satan, but they won't show a film that might contain evolutionary theory. Too funny.
Because one is about facts and reason and the other is about taste. Censorship by standars and mass acceptance, or perception of, is just another form of censorship.
If we had followed the same path, we would have been eating feces long time ago, afterall if we following correctness from numbers... it is clear that 10^12 flies can't be wrong.
A lot of what we consider today to be masterpieces happened to be rather offensive to the standards of the community where they were being created. Had they followed the classical "let the market speak" approach to acceptance of a cultural product, we would be a much poorer society w/o those works of art.
A group which has already forced people to accept that humans come from mud and dung, which has been proven false. A group that has argued that the earth was a) flat, b) the center of the universe, and c) that its core was some sort of purgatory. Well, with such "hit rate" when it comes to factual information... I am inclined to think that this group should be nowhere allowed to force moral or cultura standards with such low accuracy when it comes to actual fact, no matter the number of followers.
you don't get love from a whorehouse.
likewise, you don't get spirituality from a church/ temple/ mosque.
but that is ok, because just as there are some who will never know real love due to intellectual or character issues, and therefore need whorehouses to sake their lust that would otherwise drive them insane or drive them to commit horrendous crimes on the street, so to are their spiritual pinheads in this world who need churches/ temples/ mosques to give answer to their doubts and fears, so they don't commit horrible atrocities of spiritual void.
so the lowest common denominator empty pap we call organized religion is vile, but still necessary. just like whorehouses.
we don't want ugly or crude men raping women on the streets and we don't want small-spirited people walking around without a sense of morality or a human conscience. if they don't have the spiritual backbone to decide right or wrong, or find the basic goodness in human existence on their own, well then please, let the church turn them into sheep. better sheep than demons without a sense of social responsibility or a clue as to their relationship to human society and the idea of a greater good.
however, when these spiritual pinheads band together and try to gain political power and enforce their narrowminded interpretation of human nature on everyone else, including those who are spiritually sound on their own, they need to be stopped. in many ways, the consolidation of spiritual pinheads into organized religion and then their subsequent desire to see all of humanity fall in lockstep to their blind interpretation of a given creed is unavoidable, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't head them off at the pass and continually deny them political power over the rest of us who are spiritually grounded all on our very own.
so organized religion should not be stopped, it is useful to the health of society by satisfying the spiritual needs of those who can't do that on their own. organized religion and the fruits of its passion is even enjoyable in the way a quaint parade in a rural backwards town is enjoyable to a tourist.
but the cost of accepting that means we must be forever and eternally vigilant that the church, the mosque, and the temple never ever enjoy political power. lest they doom the rest of us to the spiritual zombification that is organized religion.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's a good thing too. Whenever science conflicts with preconcieved notions, the only polite thing to do is hide the science. After all, offending or presenting notions contrary to popular belief is not the role of the museum curator.
Of course, these museums should be patted on the back for doing the right thing despite the obvious monetary benefits to the contrary. They bit the bullet and avoided the temptation to draw controversy, protesters, and the rise in ticket sales that such media attention brings. Then there are the side issues of overcrowding, parking, and a loss of focus on their scientific and educational mission that such things would bring.
Now we can all safely go back to teaching our children that the creatures at the sulfurous vents at the bottom of the ocean are really demons escaping from hell, souls so small that they slipped through Satan's ever present but large and chubby fingers.
And on a side note, we're all doomed.
The ______ Agenda
Because it is a problem. It's not allowing people in those particular communities who actually might be interested in learning about evolution, cosmos, etc. based on the opinions of some who think that these topics are blasphemous. It's not even a standard. What about free thought?; how do you expect a society to progress if you begin to control reasonable thought?
No one has the right or should have the right to attack these documentaries when there is such "crap" (excuse me) on TV that goes on without a fuss. How can people even think about banning documentaries, its just hypocrisy. These are probably the same people who tune in every night to catch a glimpse of preacher O'Reilly.
that the rapture happens soon. These damn Christians are getting on my nerves.
While this article discusses something limited in scope (thanks for the spin, Slashfaux), this is becoming more and more common. But who is to blame? We (secularists and freethinkers) are.
We refuse to affiliate or support organisations which champion our cause. We refuse to be sufficiently vocal about matters of importance to us. We refuse, at the very least, to put our money where our mouths are.
Let me tell you, with absolute certainty, that the religious fundamentalists are more than happy to do all these things.
So, when are we going to step up and demand an end to this nonsense?
Join Tor today!
Rebel against religious zealots. ....as I watch my Karma plummet....
On Slashdot? Are you joking?! In this place of "open-minded" geeks, you'll get modded to the sky for bashing anything religious. Feel free to continue your religion hating, and enjoy the wave of mod points endowed to you by those that hate God, hate the idea of a god, hate those that believe in god, and refuse to believe -- in their open-mindedness -- that a god could even exist.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
We all should KNOW by now that trying to reason with the loony tunes gang is pointless.
Bashing them further is also pointless.
Let _IMAX_ know thy wrath.
I would expect a much larger percentage of their core audience actually has more than two neurons to rub together, and can actually at least handle the concept that that a 3000>500 (including heavy editing over the millenia) year old book might have some factual errors, and perhaps even some typos.
I rather strongly suspect that the NYTimes article had all of the religious comments that were recieved, not merely a sampling, or very close.
The Galapagos Islands one may offend someone, but Cosmic Voyage, unless they are not telling us something, would be objected to only by a total lunatic fringe... which is no problem because every film will be objectionable to some total lunatic fringe, no exaggeration.
I am not aware of any significant religious group in operation in the United States with any sort of organized, sigificant political clout that has a serious problem with or denies the existance of atoms or galaxies.
If the Imax documentary industry wishes to commit suicide for a dubious political point, they are welcome to. But all y'all Slashdotters would be wise to not suck it up like little lapdogs getting your world views confirmed; for those of you who would consider your world views confirmed by this story, class it in the "too good to be true" category.
The primary adjective to apply to anyone ignorant enough to protest atoms or galaxies is just ignorant, not "religious", and I assure you, a lot of very ignorant people agree with any position you care to name.
"I wish this passage was in the bible:
Keep thy religion to thyself."
It is, although not in those exact words. Matthew 6:5-6 features Jesus calling people who shout their faith from streetcorners hypocrites. It really pisses off lunatic street preachers when I mention it.
When I was growing up as a kid, I never thought that Science and the Bible were necessarily in conflict. Most people believe that the bible represents a guide and isn't to be taken absolutely literally.
For instance, the whole "God created the Earth in seven days." Seven days could mean seven million years, or seven billion years. It's worded in a way that man can understand. Why do people reject Evolution, when it could have been God that kickstarted the whole thing?
I can't say that I believe these things anymore but if you can believe that there is an almighty being that created us, why can't you also believe that this being crafted the universe as we know it now, and all the wonders it contains that science as yet to scratch the surface on?
It's a scary time when the few people with extreme religious views can change the life of everyone to suit their needs.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
You misinterpreted what they meant by "open minded".
:)
You, mistakenly, thought that "open minded" meant having an open mind, and being open to new ideas.
What *they* meant by "open minded" was that they'd no longer accuse you of witchcraft for being different from your neighbors, or throw you in prison for the crime of "blasphemy", or just come by and burn down your house because you're a filthy non-believer.
The fact that they've allowed you to live, even though you're obviously some sort of eviiil horrible pagan-creationist science-worshipper, shows how open-minded that religious zealots in America have become lately.
People are constantly reminded on slashdot to keep an open mind and at the slightest bit of US centrism people are immediately flogged for not considering the other point of view. Most comments with obvious prejudice are quickly modded down. However when it comes to religion already there have been posts that get modded insightful for comparing it to mental illness, dictators who killed thousands of people, etc.
In this "enlightened" state where everything is relative and we are to respect every viewpoint the last minority it is ok to hate is the Christian minority.
Not every Christian has the same viewpoint or takes the same action on every social issue. The blatant and glib stereotyping that is being modded up here is sickening.
"I dont like these kind of people"
"one of these people"
"This is how these people are"
If the above comments/stereotypes were made against any group other than Christians this would have been -1 Flaimbait, instead it is currently +5 insightful.
I would pose your question the other way around. Living in California, if I so much as breathe a single word about God, I am immeadiately told to cease and desist. I am not talking about getting up on a soap box and preaching (not my style), but rather about praying in public. By myself or with a few friends. Not loudly either. Let the Troll begin, but I am going to stand firm. You may be treated like that in the south, but we're treated like that everywhere else! And as a matter of fact, I am open minded. Not every Christian is a bible thumping zealot..just like every atheist isn't going to shove their moral's down your throat through legislation. I have no issue watching documentaries about other religions, or lack thereof (though, of course, it raises an interesting view..if you lack a religion..doesn't that become your religion? If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system?) But I do have a problem with generalization. Judge us on who we are. Listen to what we have to say, and we will listen to what you have to say. In General. Of course, on both sides you have the loud mouths, which do nothing for either side, just cause more misunderstanding and anger. I'm sure the Anti-christian /.er's are going to take this as a troll, but frankly, I'm sick of being slammed for this. You complain about people acting that way, while you yourself seem to feel free to bash the other side in the manner you just mentioned offended you!
To quote someone I heard once: "If I cant tell you my truth, and have you at least LISTEN, your not open minded. your a closed minded fool that doesnt deserve to breathe air. its that simple."
Just so the rest of the world doesn't think that it's a small minority of Americans who are doing this, a set of polls on evolution vs Creationism. The majority of Americans believe that we were created by a god in 6 days 10,000 years ago. The religious right's ability to keep proper science out of the class is starting to bite us in the ass as it will get harder to aprove biotech and other "controversial sciences" for funding. The same scientific ignorance causes Americans to abhorr homosexuality as a sinful path chosen by evil people rather than realizing it's a natural mindset encoded into the brain before birth. My only hope for the science in this country is that someone in the government will realize that we should spend money on education instead of war before the median scientific knowledge of our "first world" country falls below that of "third world" countries.
--
Want a free iPod?
Or try a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox. (you only need 4 referrals)
Wired article as proof
Errrr...If you recognized anything, you would recognize that the word "theory" means a very different thing in science then it does in Common parlance. For instance, Gravity is a theory. That Germs cause disease is a theory. The Earth Revolving around the sun is a theory. Basicly, anything that cannot be directly observed is a theory. Evoultion is Just as well supported as any of the above theories I mentioned(sometimes more so). If you would like to to tell us about the problems you "know" evoultion has I would be glad to address them.
I feel that the truth lies somewhere in the middle between evolution and creation.
I thought you said you weren't a christian. Why do you half belive in Creation?
If there weren't it would be fact, and not a theory.
Do you mean a law? A theory really is a more appropriate description of evolution than a law, but it doesn't mean it's not true. http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
The fact is that neither religon or science is capable of describing the way in which everything in the universe works. There is a great deal of belief inherent in both systems.
Religion always falls flat when it attempts to describe how anything works. Likewise, science falls flat when it attemts to answer questions like "why are we here"? Remember that if it weren't for "science" (man's attempt to understand the physical world), we'd never have invented tools, and perhaps would still be picking bugs off one another for sustinance.
I feel that the truth lies somewhere in the middle between evolution and creation. This whole debate between the two is really only a tool to divide and conquer (polarize) people. (That is an obvious deducement because that is the obvious product of the two sysems)
The only debate really occurs on the side of religion, when it attempts to answer the "how" questions. How do new species arise, how does my car work, etc. Otherwise, there's no conflict. I really don't see an attempt to divide anyone, there's just an attempt to restrict the pursuit of knowledge lest someone feel their child isn't being properly indoctrinated in their personal faith.
Neither system is really concerned with truth.
Science is by definition the pursuit of truth (in the physical world) through hypothesis, observation, and experimentation.
Religion is the persuit of salvation/happiness/enlightenment through an unseen entity (sometimes all-powerful) and in many cases involves a book that's more than a thousand years old.
I'd say that one system is clearly concerned with truth, and the other is concerned with purely spiritual matters. It's not that religion doesn't answer some really important questions people have, like "what happens when I die", etc. It's just that I'm not going to pray to God to ask him how my car runs, what causes nuclear explosions, or how species emerge on this planet. I imagine that he gave me a brain to figure those things out, or at least be smart enough to find the library.
I'm just thankful that there are people like you that will at least be mindful that some people have differing opinions. I know a LOT of non-religious people, and many of them are my friends. If I pester them and confront them about my faith, they would probably detest me. I just respect their beliefs as they respect mine.
Anyway, a little more on-topic, I kinda doubt that IMAX would cancel movies just because of crazy fundamentalist concerns. Even down here, businesses are not likely to throw away money for such things. There are probably other factors that are causing the cancellation of these movies. And what is the deal with the last example? I kinda sorta somewhat understand the first two.
The Church made him renounce his teachings... turned out he was right and they were wrong. Those that lead their life based on beliefs and dogma rather than observations and the facts that come from them need to be eradicated from this planet for the better of it.
Is it me, or does it seem that every week that goes by, I read, hear or encounter something that makes me believe that the U.S. is turning into a increasingly dumbed down, lowest common denominator, theocratic fundamentalist society?
We cant research stem cells because jesus doesnt like stem cells, every other person you meet has a fucking creed or "w" bumper sticker on their car. Creed also sucks but thats another issue. Forget facts, forget learning, its much easier to believe and have faith.
The type of people that listen to screaming right wing nutcases that tell them what to think, then watch their Nascar, sports and wrestling with other people screaming at them, then on sundays go to their protestant churches to listen to yet another person scream heavily edited and faultily translated 'holy' screeds at them.
And I am supposed to listen to these low-grade meme receptacles because they are more righteous, more holy and more american?
Then fuck america and give me a one way ticket to France with a complimentary bag of olestra free French fries.
P.S. to the right wing tool in the house (Rep. Bob Ney) that came up with the idiotic moniker Freedom fries, they were invented in fucking Belgium.
"Why is it that people insist on categorizing all fundamentalists as being the same?"
Because, by and large, the core "features" of Christian fundamentalism that they promote are the same. For example there doesn't seem to be any large debate within the fundamentalist community about the validity of evolution (and all the supporting evidence from biology, astronomy, cosmology, geology, etc). It's simply rejected out of hand.
"I am a fundamentalist Bible-believing Christian, but that doesn't mean that I checked my intelligence at the door."
Then I wish there were far more of you, and I wish you were much louder than those who would see us enter the Dark Ages again. Given my direct personal experience with friends, relatives and associates who claim to be Christian fundamentalists, intelligence (where intelligence == rational reasoning) is the first thing checked at the door. "Fundamentalist" is generally synonymous with "bible literalist" in these folks.
I was speaking to a woman the other day who, with a straight face, told me that lions, tigers, etc. used to graze on the grass in Eden with the deer. Never killed prey or even scavenged meat. Vegetarians. That "carnivore thing" only started after "The Fall". Yes, intelligence checked at the door and the claim check thrown into the shredder.
"It makes me sick that people can't fathom the concept that within such a large group you will have people at all extremes."
Then I hope you loudly and persistently educate those in your religious circles who cannot separate Islam from terrorism, and see all Muslims as "forces of evil". I hope that makes you just as sick. Does it? And do you speak out on their behalf? If so you have my deepest, genuine gratitude. If not, your just another member of a hate group who cries out when receiving the same treatment you give others.
Also please educate me, what are the different extremes in Christian fundamentalism? And who are their leaders? Because all we hear coming from the leadership (and the door-knockers and "sudden friends" on college campuses) is the same thing. That's not flamebait, I really want to know. It'll give me some hope.
Perhaps the fundies should visit the Vatican Observatory:
a tican_observe_000716.html
"Analyzing the space rocks, or training the Vatican Observatory's $3 million Arizona telescope on a distant galaxy, are both ways of gaining 'a closer appreciation of the personality of the creator', he said in an interview."
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/v
FWIW, my local parish priest was the Dean of Chemistry at a local State University. I mention this because I would like readers to be aware that the pro-science side has its own lunatic fringe that likes to pretend that hard science and religion are incompatible.
We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
Including Buddhism?
Thats the only Philosophy/religion that retards the growth of 'fundamentalists' and their ilk.
And that's where you've made your first mistake. You've demonstrated that the principle you describe as gravity causes something to happen under a single set of conditions. This isn't a proof, there is no set of deductions from knowledge, and you don't even have enough points for an inductive conclusion (which isn't proof either)
And yet noone with a grasp of scientific history should go around crowing that we 'know' it works. People are inventing invisible matter and energy to try and overcome places where it doesn't work, and you think that's fine? You can't say what 'this sort of thing' is, definitively, but you insist that anyone who denies it is insane?
And after Newton we had 'things belong together', which the 'down' is merely a special case of, due to perspective. Newton himself was quite candid about his inability to explain any of his findings.
Take Newton's Laws of Motion. They're wrong. Oops. What do we do now? What happened to those 'Laws'?
Unfortunately, this is where you're wrong. Because evolution is all about rationalising what hs already happened, we are completely unable to perform (in reasonable time) controlled experiments to check any of it. Ergo, the ability for it to make falsifiable predictions is limited making it really only borderline scientific.
Yes, it's a useful perspective, yes, the Linnean classificationists get warm fuzzies, but 'scientific' might be a touch strong.
Nihil Illegitemi Carborvndvm
Rather than respond to a bunch of similarly themed posts I would simply like to point out that Religion and Hard Science are compatible. For example:
a tican_observe_000716.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/v
"This is our way of finding God," said Consolmagno, author of Brother Astronomer: Adventures of a Vatican Scientist, published in February by McGraw-Hill.
The Vatican Observatory is one of the oldest astronomical institutes in the world and the only research group directly supported by the Holy See. The church funds the observatory to the tune of about $1 million a year, leaving its operation to the Jesuits, a religious order whose "charism," or special gift to the church, is scholarship.
As an atheist I have always wondered about prayer. The muslims go though an elobarate ritual of genuflecting and kneeling, the christians seem to think kneeling or bowing the head is enough.
The thing I wonder is this. If your god is omnipresent and omnicient why do you have to go through physicals gyrations in order to be heard by god? Most christians pray out loud why is that?
I suppose you would get the same reaction to praying in public that a muslim would get if they took out a prayer rug, faced east and started genuflecting or perhaps a wiccan got if they drew a diagram on the ground, lit candles and chanting (or whatever else they do)
I would sincerely like to know your answer to this question. In the same spirit I will answer a couple of your own questions.
"though, of course, it raises an interesting view..if you lack a religion..doesn't that become your religion?"
The answer to this is no. In the same way that not having a porche does not mean you have a porche or not having an ulcer does not mean you have ulcer.
"If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system?"
Yes but not all belief systems are religions. This is where you seem to have tripped up. You apparently believe that any set of beliefs constitures a religion and that's just not true. For example homosexuality is not a religion although the set of people who are homosexuals believe in having sex with their own gender. Similarly utilitariansim, liberalism, conservatism, and lots of other "ism"s are not a religion even though they are belief systems.
evil is as evil does
I'm a professional astronomer and I teach astronomy at a state university. This ticks me off. I don't complain about The Passion of the Christ, or barge into churches to tell them what science has to say. Ignorant fundamentalists shouldn't have any power over what is available for the rest of the country to see, especially when it is educational. Cosmic Voyages is a wonderful film, and I could probably be driven to punch someone in the face if they were stopping it from being shown.
Flabbergasted.
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
I have relatives and friends who are fundies. I believe they all have one thing in common: they are baffled and confused by current society moving too fast for them; not just the pace, but also the pace of change. Some of these fundies, IMHO the "good" ones, have benefited from using the bible or the koran as some sort of safe haven, where, when the "hectic" and baffling changes get to them, they can find a safe place to recuperate. By "good", I mean they don't try to impose on others.
Then there are the "bad" ones, who rage and rage about the evil society they think has grown up around them like a fungus. They cannot accept that other people are different. I mean this quite literally. They simply do not have even the concept or a word for the concept that it takes different types of personalities to make the world go round. They see everyone who behaves differently as deviant and the work of the devil. I do mean this literally. Since they haven't got even the concept of different, they are left with seeing differences as pure evil.
These bad fundies are the ones I spit on. I have relatives like that. I have given up trying to even co-exist with them. They are not interested in co-existence with evil people like me any more than they are interested in co-existence with moldy bread or spoiled milk.
I tell you what --- I think the rise in fundies the last few years is temporary. You look back a generation or two, that is people who had contact with the beginnings of the first rapidly changing society, with cars, airplanes, telephones, radio, TV, either personally or via stories from their grandparents. They could see the pace picking up, the gradual quickening, and so the continued quickening does not scare them. Future generations, the ones actually growing up now, see it as natural. The problem is with a generation or two in the middle, who think they have some bizarre vague false genetic memory of a time that existed only in their fantasies, where society was stable, and can only see modern society as being a corruption. They had no gradual start of changes to help them see change as good, and they didn't grow up with the rapid changes of nowadays.
I do believe these fundies will be a shrinking minority soon, a decade or two at the most, and these frenetic attempts at getting the ten commandments into courtrooms and censoring books and movies and everything else -- they are just the tremors of a dying segment of society. Of course, dying things tend to cause havoc around them, and I'd rather they just went away now and quietly, but I console myself with the idea that they are nevertheless the last gasping tremors of a bunch of muddle headed losers who are afraid of independent thought and those who practice it.
Infuriate left and right
It offers an unfalsifiable account, religiously inspired, that it orders me to accept or denounces me as evil.
If it was true, I'd expect to see a fossil layer populated equally and evenly with the same animals I see today. And I do not. But when I bring up this objection, I'm retorted with:
"SATAN IS TRYING TO FOOL YOU! Clearly, God is testing your faith by making the earth with the appearance of age."
This is not science. This is religion dressed up as science.
I have no faith. Otherwise, why not assume the universe was made ten minutes ago? By Satan? As a practical joke?
I have been watching the news lately and is what they have been telling me to believe is wrong with America.
1. Sex (Too many issues to count)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sex_po
2. Terrosim http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/
3. Teen Sex http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinio
4. Gays http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150737,00.htm
4. Bad Words / Howard Stern / Media http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149000,00.htm
5. Drugs (sports and non-sports) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150800,00.htm
6. High Gas Prices http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150977,00.htm
7. Lack of Feeding Tubes http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150988,00.htm
8. Abortion http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/35670.html
9.Iraqhttp://www.boston.com/news/world/articles
10. Slashdot http://slashdot.org/
If you watched the news lately you would know that your lack of a right of a feeding tube is the most dangerous thing in America. The President even flew back a week early to sign the bill into law to secure you right, Not to mention Congress having a late session. You need to get your head screwed on straight, and look at the important things in life and stop listening to Science. Science is too busy messing with something called FACTS.
mnewberg.com
More reasons for the fundies to hate the Catholic Church?
"Living in California, if I so much as breathe a single word about God, I am immeadiately told to cease and desist."
Funny. I live in the Bay Area (one of the most liberal areas in California), and my high school had regular AGAPE Christian groups singing and praying around the flagpost during lunch/brunch/after-school. I also attend Berkeley, probably THE most liberal/secular campus in the United States - no argument there. However, there are people handing out bibles, fliers for student prayer/bible study groups, and a guy who calls himself Joshua with a huge wooden sign that says "REPENT" and yells at random students who pass by to "remember Jesus"...not a single one of these people get harassed or "Cease and Desisted."
Sorry but if people can do this in possibly the most liberal campus in the most liberal part of California, you're making stuff up.
Also, I don't recall a law being passed that says that Christians can't marry/pray in public. How about the numerous southern states that now ban consentual relationships between two adults? It seems like many Evangelical Republicans have forgotten the "limited government" part of their party.
Now the imbalance in the Palestinian/Israeli viewpoints at Berkeley is another story entirely...but I digress.
just like every atheist isn't going to shove their moral's down your throat through legislation
What, that every citizen deserves equal rights under the law... including homosexuals?
No, you must be talking about the athiest support of stem cell research that could help ease the suffering of millions.
Those bloody athiests.... only ever thinking of themselves. Where are their moral values?
Shitdrummer
Hm, so my numbers were off. Had to go to the google cache.
Question: "If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be a 'X' would you vote for that person?"
Factor 1937 1959 1978 1999
Atheist Not asked 22% 40% 49%
Baptist Not asked 94 Not asked 94
Black 37 49 77 95
Catholic 60 70 91 94
Homosexual Not asked Not asked 26 59
Jewish 46 72 82 92
Mormon Not asked Not asked 99
Woman 33 57 76 92
So basically, as of '99, 51% would not vote for an athiest, and 41 would not vote for a homosexual.
The same article has some interesting stats to dispute the Scientology claim that only 2% of the population doesn't like them.
Also surprising that 8% still wouldn't vote for a woman.
When the original poster specifically mentioned experiments, then experiments are fair game. Read the quoted text. As far as observational science goes, the fossil record provides an extremely fragmentary, internally inconsistent, and generally unhelpful view. It is reasonably well accepted (except by idiots^W americans) that this in itself does not deny evolution, it merely doesn't support it very well.
If we come to try and make judgements about long-time-scale dynamic processes from point observations, we fall into the trap of blind inductionism. And that's not (good) science.
Evolution is sufficently poorly characterised that it isn't very good at making predictions, and there aren't many new observations to test them on, so that trivial view of hypothesis doesn't work too well either.
Popper would disagree. How can a singular event be falsifiable? It's the grue/bleen problem all over again. If you're denying this, what account of science are you using?
Nihil Illegitemi Carborvndvm
...is that the museums and science centers cave in so easily to the superstitious zealots. These institutions have a mission to educate and they are failing by behaving in such a cowardly way.
Yes, it's a theory -- one that took many hundreds of years to develop, until there were observations good enough to tell us that all the planets and the Sun don't move in circles centered on the Earth. By now, of course, it is a theory supported by so many observations that its truth is beyond doubt. Just like evolutionary theory. But they're both still theories, in the scientific sense: explanatory frameworks describing observed phenomena.
That's because, as the previous poster pointed out, you don't understand what a scientific theory is. A method of calculating observable effects is precisely what a physical theory is. Newton's law of gravitation F = GMm/r^2 is Newton's theory of gravity. Einstein's field equation G_uv = 8 pi T_uv is Einstein's theory of gravitation, the theory of general relativity.
"What gravity is", is a philosophical question and a matter of interpretation. "What gravity does, in terms of phenomena that can be observed and measured", is a scientific theory.
Sure, if they're being restricted to 'On Earth'. What about people who think that the Earth is a special case, such as any hypothetical space-dwelling humans? Lots of scientific stupidy comes about because people don't realise they're restricting their thinking to some strictly limited part of reality.
If you look at the new equations, you'll see that 'corrected' is a much more helpful term than 'replaced'. It isn't as much a condition of 'accuracy' as one of 'when the essential assumptions are violated'. Gravitational gradients, high velocities and so forth.
As far as Newton's other works, his Optics was, for the large part, very significant, but it was primarily his alchemy that people regard with scorn today. Perhaps you might want to remind yourslef that he didn't invent alchemy out of nothing becuase he was insane, instead he merely failed to break away from the preexisting philosophical frameworks that had existed for (1.8ish) millennia. In all fairness, there was little in Newton's world of observation and experiment that would have prompted him to break away and take a new approach to chemistry. It was several centuries before any significant progress was made towards modern Chemistry.
This is extremely unfair. Newton is more widely regarded as one of those who were most involved in the distinction between science method of seeking knowledge, and science as a branch of theological phenomenon. The father of the approach 'This is how it works. We don't know why and we don't care why, but we can show it works like this.' In the past, it was unthinkable to have mysterious action at a distance and so forth.
Nihil Illegitemi Carborvndvm
By your logic, not mine, FDR was an oil/religion wacko too. FDR often used the word 'God' in speeches and he fought a war, the Pacific Campaign against Japan, over oil too. We used our oil exports to pressure Japan over their invasion of China, they decided to invade some local oil producers and attack us since we were on the supply line home. Now that I think of it oil was pretty important in the European campaign as well, we suffered heavy casualties trying to knock out oil fields.
Oh BTW, your full of crap, the Iraqi oil fields are being run by the Iraqi's. As opposed to before the war when it was run by the U.N. and siphoning money back to Saddam, via the French and others. Things are far more complicated than whatever you heard in some campus rally. You really need to get past the politics, be it from the left or right, pro-US or anti-US, and do a little more research and read a little more history. Then you'll start to understand how incomprehensibly complicated things really are.
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
These days, vigilance is lax and "democracy" seems to be more valued than liberty anyway. The religious right and the politically correct left both seem to have an intense desire to dictate how we live our lives and the current state seems to be a "compromise" where both extremes get to do their worst.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
History teaches us that an empire rises because of inovation, either in the art of war and/or commerce. Look at the Romans with their legions or the British with their navy and the Americans with their commerce, productivity and armed forces after the second world war.
Similarly an Empire falls when it either fails to deal with new inovation or knowledge, or its people become indolent and self-centered or decadent.
In the Middle age's Arab civilisation was vastly in advance of Dark age Europe, mainly because it had a religious view that respected learning and knowledge and was not afraid of learning from others , even if they were not of the same religion or creed, it saved much knowledge from the Greeks that was lost in Europe due to the actions of religious zealots
I think this is just another indicator of the end of the American century, its a shame because America, whilst far from perfect, has or had a lot of good things to teach the world.
And on the seventh day God rested... which, with a day equal to a few billions years, means he's still taking a break...
You may be treated like that in the south, but we're treated like that everywhere else!
Really? Interesting. I didn't realize that me and the other fifteen atheists in the United States were making it so hard on you hundred million or so religious folks. We'll try harder not to use our massive majority to oppress you.
I have no issue watching documentaries about other religions, or lack thereof (though, of course, it raises an interesting view..if you lack a religion..doesn't that become your religion? If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system?)
Wow, nice. You managed to come up with a really original argument that no atheist has ever rebutted. Please feel free to read more about atheism before you start redefining it on your own terms.
You complain about people acting that way, while you yourself seem to feel free to bash the other side in the manner you just mentioned offended you!
Erm... I thought we were complaining about religious wackos who think that evolution is evil and wrong influencing stupid businesses to avoid showing films that might offend their fairytale worldview, but I guess you're right, we're just 'bashing' religion with no justification. I mean, the destruction of science is no reason to complain, right?
This would be a justification for "creation science" except that creation scientists are not acting in good faith.
They don't use scientific techniques, they don't use scientific arguments, they don't use scientific observations, and they don't use scientific data.
Instead, they use the trappings of science to give a superficial credibility to their ideas, which actually have nothing new or improved to offer serious scientific inquiry. The only theories they "disprove" are strawmen of their own creation. They continue to trot out the same tired hobbyhorse "problems" that serious scientists have long moved beyond (such as the creation of organs such as the eye). Their only goal is to continue to hold their dogmatic beliefs about God and his manner of creation, even when these beliefs are in disagreement with scientifically established facts.
So the answers to your questions
What evidence do they have that can't be explained by the current evolutionary theory? None.
What are the gaps in the current theory they try to explain?. None. The gaps they mention are in their own understanding of modern biology.
Then work on solving those problems and create a more robust theory of evolution. Scientists are already working on more complete and robust understanding of evolution and of natural selection. Spending time responding to fundamentally dishonest criticism from religiously-motivated wackos is just a waste of time.
Once a theory is mature enough and has sufficient evidence, even the church can't deny it. Actually, the Catholic church no longer denies evolution by natural selection. They do use a special pleading that only humans are blessed with a soul, but they do not claim this as a scientific truth.
"And I suppose there is a little difference between praying aloud in a group, and everyone getting out a prayer rug and becoming an obstruction to traffic (people, cars, customers, what have you)"
If you have gathered in a circle at the local starbucks and are praying loud enough for other people to hear (even if barely) then there is no appreciable difference between that and opening up a prayer rug in the local starbucks and starting to genuflect.
"Loosely, any specific system of code of ethics, values, and belief." and "A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." (google Definitions of religion on the Web)"
If that's a definition of religion then libeterianism is a religion, basketball is a religion, weightlifting is a religion, ebay is a religion. All of those are a cause, principle or an activity that is pursued with seal or conscientious devotion.
"And Homosexuality, if I remember correctly, is a value system and life style choice..."
So is christianity or islam. All religions are lifestyle choices.
"And I didn't mention that the isms are automatically Religions. Though, one could make it his/her/it's religion."
Ok then. Athesims is not a religion. It's just another ism.
Here is the thing that really gets my goat though. Atheism, homosexuality, liberterianism, scientology, and christianity are all lifestyle choices and yet of those only scientology and christianity get constitutional protection. I think that's wrong. If homosexuality as you say could be made somebodies religion then it should have the exact same constitutional protection as christianity does. And yet it doesn't. Could you imagine what would happen if your state passed a law saying christians can't get married or serve in the military?
evil is as evil does
My point is that religion & science are two of a kind, not parts of a whole. They each aim to completely describe the universe in their own way. In this regard, I find them both lacking.
Religion is lacking because of any kind of facts or evidence to back up its claims. Science is lacking because it fails to even begin to explain some of the most basic and important things in our universe.
You might say that science will be able to explain those things given enough time, but isn't that really just another belief? What if it can't? How many times in history have scientific explanations been proven to be totally untrue? How long will it take for currently held scientific explanations to be proven untrue?
Do you get what I'm trying to say?
Given what I have said, is religious belief any better or worse than scientific belief? Is it any wonder that there is so much conflict between the two?
Dom
It is not does to make God hear you, it is done to change your own frame of mind - prayer is mostly done for its affect on you (to make you more open to God), not its affect on God.
Events aren't falsifiable, *theories* are.
As an example, historians can develop theories about "the causes of the American revolution" and then they can go about examining letters, contemporary accounts, and other historical documents to test whether their theories are correct or not.
The examination of documents is the experiment in this case.
Now, history is not a scientific endeavor, because one can't really make testable claims about what caused people to decide to do or say what they apparently did or said.
There is a huge amount of diversity in today's biosphere, which offers ample opportunity to find test cases for various theories of speciation, for instance. If I go and study the speciation of a hundred different types of existing snails or beetles, for instance, I can get a reasonably good basis to try to disprove one theory or another.
To claim that laboratory experiments are so much better than biological fieldwork is really not fair.
Including the Buddhists who burned down a chirch near where I live (twice in two years), along with several hundred others in this coutnry?
If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system? - that's a logical fallacy. Refusal to believe in existance of any entity until there is scientific proof or at least strong imperical evidence is not a religion of any kind. It is common sense. I am an atheist, but at the very moment you come up with a provable proof of existance of god that will withstand peer review, I will accept god as a fact.
You can't handle the truth.
You have to realize, it could very well have been seven days AND billions of years or perhaps less than an instant, time isn't the constant we often think it is.
:-)
Any religious person who "proves" science is bunk using timelines can be proven to be a heathen who thinks that some how, time has authority over God.
Doing so is fun for awhile, but arguing with the religious is rather boring and pointless. If the current trends follow, suggesting the world may be round will soon get you killed in boiling oil for the act of heresy. Ever wanted to live way back in the days before computers, but still retain your knowledge? nows your chance! what an opportunity I guess.
In the grand scheme of things, I suppose I should remain positive since we, as humans on this planet, have come a really long way. We have ceased to believe the Earth is the center of the universe and we have ceased to believe that it is flat. It's progress.
One day people will sit up and realize that disbelieving in multiple gods such as Greek or Roman is pretty much the same thing as disbelieving in a single god and that for the same reasons they disbelieve in those multiples is the same reason for disbelieving in their one.
Many people have realized this, individually, yet so many won't admit to it... and the culture of belief persists. It frightens me that believers exist today -- it truly does.
For what it's worth, I consider myself a Christian. I'm happy with my faith, and I can easily see how the study of science fits in nicely with the faith.
I love to see documentaries about science. Learning about the universe that God created fills me with wonder, and the more I see how absolutly amazing the universe is, the more I appreciate what He has given us.
Now, there are those out there who feel that only their understanding of the Bible is correct, and chose to turn their back on any course of study which reveals how truly fantastic creation really is. I have a name for those people: Wackjobs.
It's hard for me to even give those sorts the consideration of being misguided but well intentioned. These people come off as mean-spirited individuals who aren't interested in discovering the truth. God is truth, and turning your back on what is the truth, both spiritually and scientifically is akin to turning your back on God. The way I see it, there's only one way to deal with those types of people: Ignore them.
The only way these people get power is to take their demands seriously. If Imax theaters refuse to show scientific films because they are afraid of offending this very small, but very vocal minority (or in this case, because a few nutjobs said they thought it might be "blasphemous" in one of those inane focus groups), they are doing a disservice to the public in refusing to educating them.
We live in a secular country. We should all be able to celebrate our faith, regardless of what it is. But we shouldn't allow our faith to get in the way of an objective, secular science. Nor should we allow fundamentalism to ruin the education of the population as a whole.
Now, that having been said, it would be nice if the scientific community stopped presenting evolution as the "truth", and touted it for what it is: The best scientific explanation we have right now that outlines the origins and development of life. I only say this because I sometimes think that science, in difference to religion, can be guilty of the same closed mindedness that plagues the fundamentalist movements. When something like "Intelligent Design" comes around, it's immediately dismissed as religious pseudoscience, despite the fact that there might be something to it.
Sure, as far as our current understanding goes, evolution still makes more scientific sense, but let's not sit on our laurels and ignore studying any other ideas. In the same way, let's not succumb to the crazy idea that trying to tell the story of evolution, or of the big bang is somehow an affront to God. Or, more accurately, let's not listen to the vocal minority who wants to stymie any understanding of science which they see as a threat to their faith.
We're fighting a global war on terrorism right now. A good number of those who are out to harm us are motivated by closed minded fundamentalism. Let's try and not give an ear to those within our own country who are motivated by the same thing.
The Internet is generally stupid
My 4th grade schoolteacher asked me personally (he was the father of one of my friends, so we talked often outside school): "Do you really believe that we, humans, descend from such an ugly animal, an ape ?"
I explained him (a 10 year old, to a schoolteacher, no less) that no, we humans do not directly descend from the apes that are currently living, but that, according to current and widely accepted current scientific theories, humans and apes do share a common ancestor.
The repercussions made me lose all respect for authority.
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
The Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, which supposedly didn't want to show "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea", is showing Aliens of the Deep.
The Charleston Science Museum is also showing Aliens of the Deep.
"Cosmic Voyage" is from 1996. It's perhaps the biggest zoom shot of all time, starting from the quark level and zooming out to the entire universe over 35 minutes. It wasn't controversial at the time, and it doesn't seem to be that controversial now. Just dated. It's basically a remake of Powers of Ten, by Charles and Ray Eames.
Galapagos is playing at the IMAX in Fort Lauderdale, FL, along with two other IMAX theaters in the US. It's from 1999. Nobody seems to be that wound up about it.
It looks like some casual comment by the marketing guy for the museum in Fort Worth has been blown up out of proportion.
The big problem with "Volcanoes of the Deep Ocean" may be that it's "too educational". There's a teacher's guide, with quizzes and homework assignments. And really, there's a glut of undersea IMAX movies.
"1. Doesn't seem to be a very good support for evolution.
2. What evidence?
3. What tests?
4. Evolution hasn't put forth any predictions that have survived real world tests.
5. Maybe."
===
1. To you, maybe so.
2. Fossil record, myriad techniques for establishing age of relics & fossils, size of the universe, temperature of the earth, background cosmic radiation, observed evolution (particularly in micro-organisms), the twin hiearchies (to name just a few pieces amongst literally millions of pieces of coroborating evidence).
3. Tests such as breeding new species of bacteria by placing them under environmental stress.
4. The major successful prediction that the original theory of evolution made was that there must exist a mechanism of inheritance whereby partents pass on their attributes to their offspring. Many years later - hey presto, DNA was discovered.
5. Definately.
Because evolution is all about rationalising what hs already happened, we are completely unable to perform (in reasonable time) controlled experiments to check any of it. Ergo, the ability for it to make falsifiable predictions is limited making it really only borderline scientific.
I don't think you know what you're talking about. Speciation has been observed many times in the laboratory. Look up "Drosophila melanogaster." Its a kind of fruitfly that has been observed undergoing speciation during controlled experiments. Even if tons of experiments hadn't been done, your "falsification" criteria is met every time geologists study a new part of the geologic record. We find new fossils, we compare these with known theories, and those theories are either falsified or they aren't, and we continue the process.
*yawn*
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
And while you're there, read more of their stuff, such as Evolution is a Fact and a Theory and Can Evolution Make Predictions?
1. I'm no fundamentalist
/. discussion I've ever read. Stupid little rants and gratuitous religion-bashing are being modded as "insightful" and even "informative." Come on, moderators: The system doesn't exist so you can go "Right on dude! Religion sucks!" and click "insightful."
/. users, because they confirm their pre-set worldviews. The fundies are taking over! BusHitler! TalibafghanistCreationis GACK!!
2. This is perhaps the worst-modded
3. If this story is legit -- and I'm not at all sure that it is -- the villains aren't the fundies. The villains are the theater managers. TFA doesn't mention any actual protests -- just the *fear* of protests.
4. Like a few other brave souls in this discussion, I find the story pretty fishy. It reads like a pretty typical liberal alarmist, NYT view of what they *think* all those red-state yokels are like. A few of the things that raise warning flags:
* Everyone interviewed had the same point of view (there doesn't seem to be even an attempt to get a quote from "the other side");
* There is no quantification at all (how many people of the 137 in Ft Worth complained? The NYT, oddly, doesn't tell us.)
*The story notes, about the film "Volcanoes": "On other criteria, like narration and music, the film did not score as well as other films, Ms. Murray said, and over all, it did not receive high marks, so she recommended that the museum pass." So that raises the question -- if it WAS good, then would she have run it? And if so, doesn't that make the whole religious angle moot?
Etc. I agree with an earlier poster -- these stories just ring true to a certain subset of
- Alaska Jack
There's plenty of good movie material in the Bible. I suppose the problem is there just aren't enough Christian directors.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Christian fundamentalism will be the death of America.
As an European, this might not be a bad thing if I were not affected. What I worry about is that they take the rest of te world down with them. The US does have the power and nobody able to stop them.
I hope that when it finaly does come to that that the Amercan public realize why they have a second amendment. Especially the part for the comma.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I've seen "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," and it's just pretty fish swimming around. Nothing too serious and I'm suprised people are up in arms about it.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
A theory in science means an explanation. You can't "upgrade" from explanation to fact. A theory explains the facts. Apparently you think a theory is a potential fact that might someday become a real fact. That's not a correct understanding. A theory cannot become a fact. It's a nonsensical thing to even suggest.
Evolution is a fact. We've seen it happen. We have several explanations (aka theories) as to how it happens. Natural selection is a rather good theory that explains all the existing facts and is our best understanding of evolution. You can dispute the theory, but it's silly to dispute the facts.
The theory of evolution can be deduced from falsifiable statements in the spirit of Popper. For this we can completely ignore the fossil record and much macroscopic biology. Observations from this realm are consistent with the theory, but can never prove it. It was Darwin's great insight that he could come up with the theory anyway. To prove evolution we need turn only to modern molecular biology. Consider the following statements:
1) DNA sequence (genotype) has no role in determining phenotype.
2) DNA is not replicated during reproduction of organisms.
3) When DNA is replicated, it is with perfect fidelity.
4) All phenotypes are equally likely to survive.
5) All genotypes (DNA strings) are possible.
All of these are falsifiable by experiment. Some of these experiments are routine operations, happening thousands, maybe millions of times a day.
1) Simple counter example, sickle cell anemia is caused a singel letter ("base") change in DNA.
2) See the first experiments regarding semi-conservative replication. Watch mitosis under a microscope.
3) Can be detected a number of ways: sequencinq, probes, restriction enzyme digestion etc.
4) Consider drug resistent pathogens, differential survival can be traced back to different phenotypes.
5) Number of possibilites grows exponentially, "more than the number of atoms in the universe" kind of problem.
If you consider all these together it should be possible to see why life evolves.
I suggest some experiments that could go towards falsifying evolution:
Demonstrate a living organism that completely lacks DNA/RNA or any information bearing structure that could fit into 1-5 above. eg, an elephant with no nucleus (still would have mitochondrial DNA, but would raise serious questions nonetheless).
Capture the spontaneous incarnation of a fully grown elephant on film, under sufficiently rigorous conditions (A big glass cage, in public view, James Randi watching out for flummery etc).
It is no longer necessary to prove evolution. Given all of the above it is the task of creationists to prove how there cannot be evolution.
There is no doubt that the creation of child porn is illegal, (although some could argue 18 is a bit harsh. Not even a century ago women started having sex when they started having periods.) but I don't see what watching it does to harm anyone but yourself.
It's yet another time our society is treating the symptoms of a problem instead of the problem.
If these people are offended by science films, are they happy to see 'God' at work on the news when for example a tsunami kills a couple of hundred thousand people in Asia?
Personally, I'd like him to get down here and explain himself, then maybe I could kick his ass.
In Europe, we have the same growing right-wing as in the US, but it has not been incorporated by religious factions.
So were does the difference come from? The parent post explanation is way off, at least in Western Europe religions are struggling massively just to get people into the churches - most people just don't believe in churches as institutions anymore, that try to prescribe how people should live. So it's not about the content of the religion, it's about the institution that looses acceptance.
And this is a phenomenon that goes beyond religion; trade unions or any other institutions loose grip on people's lives. We live in the era of the individualist, people make their own choices for their own lives. And they assemble their own 'belief' from religions and non-religous streamings like Buddhism.
NB: European countries don't have state religions
"It's going to be hard for our filmmakers to continue to make unfettered documentaries when they know going in that 10 percent of the market" will reject them
Last I checked you're not forced to go see a movie if you don't want too. They will potentially loose the 10% regardless if the movie is shown there or not. The theatre/museum knows it's market and their 10% is probably more like 90% of the money they make. It's a no brainer.
Oh never mind I forgot. If you disagree with something your still suppose to support it with your hard earned money. I'm sure people will line up.
I just read your sig link. What a load of horseshit. Isiah predicted Jesus? Come on, when the book was written down, the author knew about both Isiah AND Jesus and just massaged it a bit to fit his/her political needs.
The bible is a political book. In it's present form it was originally written in Roman Europe under orders from Constantine. He wanted certain things expressed and certain things missed out. Hence why a lot of the gospels found in the Dead Sea Scrolls didn't make it in there - political reasons. The whole thing was a bunch of Roman propaganda to help keep the Emperor's subjects in check.
Since then it's been added to, re-written (King James version for example), deleted from, on the orders of other leaders for their own political gain.
If it really is the word of God, then the Dead Sea Scrolls must also be the word of God (the original Hebrew and Aramaic texts were written down by the same group of scribes), so why is it that some of God's words are deemed fit to go in the bible and some not?
Bob
Listen to my latest album here
You're full of taurine excrements.
I'm fed up with this bullshit about evolution being "not proven". It is proven and is solid like a T-34 shell. As in every branch of science it's a large patchwork, it may require refining, adjustments, interpretations, contributions, but there is no way the world was created from a space fart by some nutty long-bearded prick. Dammit, genetic algorithms are regularly used in mathematics! What other proof do you morons need to understand that it works?
And I'm puzzled why the creationist nuts don't use the most obvious argument against evolution: Americans are getting dumber and dumber.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
who can't even spell "controversial".
Science will be doomed by inattention to details long before it will be done in by a small minorities' feelings about a single issue.
Clear, Dark Skies
I love science. I always have. I spent most of my life as an atheist who loved science. Now I spend my life as a Christian who loves science. I believe the Bible's account of creation. Do I understand it? No. Do I accept it? Yes. I do not have to understand something to accept it. I do not fully understand Einstein's theory of relativity, but I accept it on his authority. I do not fully understand Darwin or his theory, but I reject it because it directly conflicts with the account of an authority which I hold higher than Darwin. There are alot of Christian who do not understand or accept science as I do, it's alien to them, and they fight it. Of course, there are many of my athiest friends who do not know Jesus the Christ as I do, He is completely alien to them, and they fight him just as unlearned Christians fight science. One planet, One Truth, One God, billions of free minded people. Hold on kids, this is gonna get messy!
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."
Note that the term "servant" in the King James Version of the Bible refers to slaves, not employees like a butler, cook, or maid.
Yet, slavery was defeated in the USA, or that's what rational Americans think today.
A great reference about this is: What the Bible says about slavery
Makes you wonder what's behind the apparent rise in America of fundamentalism and the belief that the Bible is inerrant. Some people (some, not most) are still trying to fight the civil war, it appears.
The reason there is closed mindedness is because the FACT that your religion is a manifestation of a mental illness that you carry. You can't help it. You need treatment, but unfortunately your type shouts down those who would provide you the correct treatment.
You can take comfort in your illness if you want, like schizophrenics might wish to too, but don't expect society to want to do anything else but eradicate the illness you carry. Working against that is illogical and simply perpetuates the illness.
And that CANNOT be tolerated, just as tuberculosis, AIDS, schizephrenia, ebola, child molestation, typhoid and other physical and mental diseases cannot be tolerated in a civilised society. They must be cured.
Facts combat religious illness.
RST
I'd actually love to see more documentaries about OTHER creation myths.
Just about every culture across the world has their own great flood myth. There is some scientific evidence that there was a sudden flood in the Mediterranean region
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
I am a Christian. I am a decon in my church. We take communion every week. I also believe in science. So many of the religious right in the US are focused HOW things happened, when they're forgetting that the important thing is WHO did it all.
just like every atheist isn't going to shove their moral's down your throat through legislation.
Name one instance in which an Atheist has shoved morals down anyone's throat via legislation. Just off the top of my head I can think of one going the opposite way right off the top of my head. Blue laws. There is absolutely no reason to prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sunday aside from religious reasons. There are more, but I'll let that one stand as an obvious example.
(though, of course, it raises an interesting view..if you lack a religion..doesn't that become your religion? If you refuse to believe or acknowledge God, aren't you following a belief system?)
No. A lack of religion does NOT constitute religion. By definition. It's not like Atheists (in general) actively disbelieve God in the face of any evidence. On the contrary, the resounding lack of evidence is what drives us to the conclusion that there is no God. On the other hand, if God were to appear tomorrow in a manner that was indisputable, we'd (again, most of us) be instant converts. A religion implies a faith. And faith requires that one believes in something absent evidence. Given evidence, faith is no longer required.
Several Imax theaters, including some in science museums, are refusing to show movies ... fearing protests from people who object to films that contradict biblical descriptions of the origin of Earth and its creatures.
My own first reaction was that this is a much larger First Amendment issue than the Apple lawsuits, and many posters are expressing fear of a growing "American Taliban" and such.
But, on closer examination, the suppression is self-imposed. That first paragraph is the last mention of the word "protest" in the article; I found no mention of organized protests or a movement to suppress the films. The only specific comments anyone cites are those solicited in a survey after a test screening, and the comments are not of the foaming-at-the-mouth, book-burning variety. In fact, they're a darn sight tamer than most comments about anything here on /.
Quoting the article again:
"It's going to be hard for our filmmakers to continue to make unfettered documentaries when they know going in that 10 percent of the market" will reject them.
Others who follow the issue say many institutions are not able to resist such pressure.
Pressure? So now a small minority opting not to pay to see a documentary, however silly we may consider their reasons, constitutes a threat to free expression? The alarmism in that correlation is, IMHO, more inflammatory and manipulative than the "pressure" cited in the article.
Look, I abhor the movement to elevate "creationism" to the level of science in school curricula, and I know that the organized movement to do so is in the minds of those expressing their fears in the article. I'll be the one of the first to fight the movement before my local school committee if it comes to that, which I doubt.
But I don't see anything to react to here, other than to be a little more proactive about voting with my feet and wallet to offset the silliness of others.
idiots, plain and simple.
To lean on your religion in this way is to use it as a crutch for your inability to understand anything past your nose, plain and simple.
I know plenty of people who are very scientific, very well educated, very intelligent, and very religious.
Do they feel that their beliefs mean they can't follow science? Of course not.
What's wrong with feeling that God put the universe there for you to figure out yourself? You can still look at creation and say "It's all part of God's plan". If what you see doesn't match what's in your particular translation of the holy book, your responsibility is to find out WHY it doens't match. Translation error? Historical error? Plain old human error? Science experiment is wrong?
But stuffing your head in the sand and saying "how DARE they teach science" is absurd.
What's laughable to me is that people ridicule my faith in accepting that the universe was created in 6 literal days, about 6,600 years ago but those same people are not even willing to accept the notion that their belief in evolution is based on no less faith then I have. Evolution is bad science, simple fact. The problem, though, is that the community of crazies will do anything to protect their "religion" and so the truth never really gets out. There are so many fallacies and outright lies in text books about evolution, many of which have been proven wrong as long as a hundred years ago, yet the establishment is hesitant to remove them because they have nothing to replace it with. One of the best examples of this is Ernst Haekel's drawings of embryos. Kids are told on one page that fossils are dated by the rocks they are found in, and then on the next page that the rocks are dated by the fossils that they're found in - and we wonder why kids today are confused. As to other lies that have been used to promote evolution at one time or another, we have Java Man, Piltdown Man, Lucy, the beaks of finches, and the colour of moths, and beneficial mutation, which has never been observed. I have no problem with evolutionary theory being taught to my children in school. The problem that I have is that it is presented as proven fact, which it is not, and there is a substantial group of the scientific (and non-religious) community who believe the same, but no one is willing to even entertain an alternate theory because all their credibility is tied up into evolution. You want me to believe that somehow I've 'evolved' from a puddle of goo where life spontaneously came into existence and that that through the miracle of evolution that one cell has eventually changed into every life form on the planet. And somehow, you say you're based on science and I'm the one of us who is full of faith.
First, "Why is it acceptable to be anti-gay in the US?". It's the entire basis for freedom of speech - you don't have to like what you are hearing, but you do have the right to say it. So, it's acceptable to be anti-gay in the US because it's acceptable to be PRO-gay. It's one of those "freedoms"... we get to choose how we feel on the topics that are important to our lives.
Second, It makes me sick, as a bisexual man, to think that if I lived in the US I'd be considered immoral or degenerate.. I hate to tell you, but chances are - wherever you live - someone thinks you are immoral or degenerate for living the life that you do. It may not be out in the open, but I'm sure that is the case. It's not like the American Population has the market cornered on anti-gay feelings. Here in the US, while you may be considered immoral / sinner / what have you by some groups, there are an equal number of groups that support your choices of lifestyle.
Frankly, I don't care if someone is gay / bi / straight. You are who you are, and if you treat me with respect is all I care about. Again, I understand what you are saying, but I think you have way over generalized this case.
It is your Most Sacred and Holy duty to fuck the world up as much as you can to speed on The Rapture(sic).
Ah and the Rapture Index, tracking such milestones in the breakdown of social morality as:
1968
U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Epperson v. Arkansas:
State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions
Insert Signature Here
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
Truth: Damn near all terrorists are Arabs.
Yes, from the Arabs who blew up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, to the Arabs who plant all the car bombs in Belfast, to the many Arab revolutionary movements in South America, to the Arabs who bomb abortion clinics, to the Arabs who spray Sarin gas in Japanese subways. Nothin' but freakin' a-rabs.
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
and an inability to parse simple declarative sentences.
Clear, Dark Skies
I know you're not arguing for this POV, but still..
Another way to think of it is in the time that "god created the Earth", the days were far far longer. For example, a day on some planets is far longer than that of a day on our modern-day Earth.
"Y'see, when it says DAYS it actually means millennia..."
Thou shalt not kill
"Y'see, when it says KILL it actually means 'partake of hotdog buns on a Thursday'...
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
Evolution gets the brunt of the contoversy, but modern astronomy, cosmology, physics, and geology are no more consistent with the prevailing theology than is the science of biology (as Galileo Galilei unfortunately discovered back in the 17th century). I doubt any field is safe that finds itself in contradiction with what was known and believed 2000 years ago. Is our Age of Reason once again in twilight?
There's no equivalence. Here's why: on one hand, you have a theory formed from observation of the physical world over the last 150 years, subject to constant change and revision. On the other hand, you have the story of the Creation, which is held to be true because God said so (well, because His followers and a certain Book said so, and the Book actually has two Creation stories which contradict each other).
When we start burning bibles, then we'll be as bad as they are.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
Christianity is a belief system. Plain and simple. Like was said elsewhere in this discussion, you can adopt it as a lifestyle, but it's not necessary. You are expected to, but if you're saved, you're saved. Think of the theif on the cross, all he had was belief in God, and he was told he would be in heaven that day. He had no lifestyle that would be considered Christian.
placing weight on the OT is bad? o.O Christ also said he wasn't here to destroy the old laws, but rather to amend them. And yes, he was the New Covenant. (let me briefly explain)Before Christ, in order to be forgiven for sins a sacrifice was needed. When Christ died on the cross, he became an eternal sacrifice for all man-kind. Thus the Old Covenant of Animal Sacrifice was done away with, while Christ took his place as the lamb of God.
And he did preach against the hypocrites who wore massive robes, struted down the street, had fan-fair blown in public places to announce they were praying. Against those who took the bible and twisted it for their own profit, and used the bible to oppress the common folk. Christ was a carpenter. He was a common man, a sacrifice for the every day person. He did not make his appearance as a Glorious King leading his Army (though He could have, and Will) And you are right on the fact the Devil can quote Scripture. But so can believers.
Uhh.. you completely missed the point of that passage. Let me quote: "When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."
This is a pride/humility issue, not an evangelism issue. How do you think Christianity spread to non-Jews in the 1st century? In the marketplaces and Mars Hills of the world.
I'm not defending lunacy, just evangelism.
http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly041229.htm
... if you have the right fundamentals.
An example of what should be fundamental to a Christian is as follows:
"The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against these things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and wants. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other." (Galatians)
The problem with Bible-thumping Christians is that they love to get fired up over the Bible's condemnations of evil, such as
"Every morning I will put to silence all the wicked in the land; I will cut off every evildoer from the city of the Lord" (Psalms)
without studying the Bible to understand how it defines evil. They'll cling to a verse like that, and go fight against not the true evils of the world, like greed and imcompassion, but they war against some superficial "evils" that are usually just cultural impasses.
A great example of Christians missing the point: you know that the Bible doesn't feature the sin of Sodom and Gommorah as having anything to do with homosexuality? Here's what it says:
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did destable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." (Ezekial 16)
If Christians believe in the Bible, then maybe they should read all of it, and think on it, instead of lingering all their life on John 3:16 and the 10 Commandments.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
They do sound interesting. I wouldn't mind seeing any of those, either, nor would I mind exposing my kids to them, so long as the programs don't outright mock what I believe. I would view it as an opportunity to discuss with my kids what I believe and why I believe it. Ultimately, my kids have to decide for themselves what they believe about the world around them.
I don't think that evangelical Christians, by and large, are afraid of the marketplace of ideas. They are used to being the underdog in an ideological war.
If you look at the public struggles between creationists and evolutionists, the creationists who represent the mainstream Evangelical thought are not trying to remove evolution, they would just like the teaching of evolution to acknowledge that it is not a proven fact, and that there are other schools of thought, an in particular, the possibility of intelligent design.
As a creationist, I do *not* want the teaching of religion in the public school classroom. Public school teachers have a wide variety of religious beliefs, so what would be the guarantee that they would represent the Christian belief? I rather not even go there.
"Is our Age of Reason once again in twilight?"
Well how else would you interpret the timely appearance of... Satan's Turtle!
wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
Living in California, if I so much as breathe a single word about God, I am immeadiately told to cease and desist.
You could aways say that you are excerising your first admendment right to say anything that you would want. You then say that they don't have to listen.
I had to go through public school in Arkansas. I've always wanted to shout at any idiot that says there is no religion in public schools. It was a daily lunch time occurance of trying to hide from those that attempt to witness to you. My best advice is to be quiet, nod your head every now and then, and never, ever argue or agree. On a side note, that skill got me through several not quiet sane college professors and advisors.
At least they don't pull out the old "The devil can quote scripture to his own ends" line. That one really drives me up the wall. You can prove things out of your magic book, but I can't?
I would argue that war does not always equate to evil. Just because you hate Bush, Republicans, and religion does not mean they are wrong.
Next up, not all religious people are Bush supporters, as you seem to imply. Frankly, I'm indifferent to politics because politicians almost always are self-serving, regardless of their party association.
Finally, invoking the name of God in vain, well, my guess (I could be wrong) is that you don't have the full understanding of what that means. Please read my blog post that touches on the name of God, and what it means to "take it in vain".
What I dislike about these sorts of all-out, unbridled attacks on religion is that everything is generalized to the point of fallacies. This very thread is based on an article written by a leftist (and therfore, anti-Bush, probably anti-religious) newspaper, the New York Times, in an attempt to slander religious people, and by associaion, the NYT's political enemy, George Bush. Because of hate-filled posts like those found in this thread, all we religious can do is defend ourselves from peanut gallery onslaughts like this one.
I choose to believe that a God has existed throughout history and still does. You don't have to believe that and I won't force my opinions on you. I just wish you would do the same and not force your hatred and your world views on me.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
Actually the 6000 year old Earth started out as a gross misunderstanding among a few prominent christian figureheads. It spread out from there. If you consult analytical christians, they agree that the 6000 year old idea is a misunderstanding.
Far better than that "gap theory" is the "day age" theory. The Hebrew word translated to "day" in Genesis 1 is the ONLY ancient Hebrew word that COULD have been used to describe a long but finite period of time.
In that context, with days being eons, Genesis 1 fits quite nicely into modern cosmology and geology. I could explain further, but no time right now.
I see the creationists got to you before your BS detector was working.
It would be trivial to falsify evolution, if it was wrong.
My take is that you have been indoctrinated in evolutionist boot camp? If any other scientific theory was under as much controversy and disagreement as evolution, it would hardly be considered a scientific "fact". One of the major reasons for acceptance of Darwinian evolution is branching away from religion, which interfered with science on more than just numerous occasions.
Scientists are confident in evolution because nothing even remotely like this has ever been found.
I do not think I understand your sentence, but scientists are confident in evolution (mind you, only a certain percentage of scientists believe in evolution, and only a fraction of that are confident) because this is the only explanation for intelligent life outside of religious creation stories.
It's "reproduced" every time new data is dug up, and it confirms the same patterns. It is also reproduced in the laboratory, where short-lived specimens are observed to evolve (and even speciate) within the scale of individual researcher's careers.
What data? If evolution were a fact, surely in all of fossil record there should be ample evidence of one kind of living thing evolving into another kind. Darwin himself was embarassed by the fossil record because it did not prove to be what he predicted. With time, the more abundant fossil evidence shows that some of the examples that were once used to support evolution now are seen not to do so at all. Eohippus, Archaeopteryx, Lungfish are just some examples of animal life thought to exist, but proven false. I will reiterate, the only data that is dug up supports sudden life forms according to their kinds, not gradual, and no transitional forms.
Moreover, genes are qutie a powerful stabilizing mechanism, the function of which is to prevent new forms evolving. And mutations, while they exist, cannot explain the growing complexity of living organisms.
Oddly, anti-evolutionists claim that every discovery of an intermediate form makes TWO "unexplained gaps" in the fossil record where there was only one; their objections appear increasingly dishonest and desperate.
I just one to make one thing clear, and that is that I do not support dishonest fabrication of one kind or another. I am no less displeased about the fundamentalists who fabricate evidence in support of creation than with the scientific fundamentalists who fabricate evidence to support evolution.
One rabbit fossil in the same strata as dinosaurs would do it. One bird with the ammonites. One bony fish with wiwaxia. Yes, but that would support neither evolution nor creation. The pattern of intelligent design speaks of sea life appearing in one era, bird life in another, land life in yet another. It anticipated a fossil record that contains:
1. Complex life forms suddenly appearing.
2. Complex life forms multiplying after their kinds (biological families).
3. No transitional links between biological families.
4. No partial body features, all parts complete.
If evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things, such as developing arms, legs, lungs, other bones and organs. Even looking early in the Cambrian period, fossils of the major groups of invertebrates appear in an explosion of living things, unconnected to any evolutionary ancestors.
This is a huge gap, this is a hole. You simply cannot ignore this, and give excuses that "creationists" stick to this like a barnacle as if it's their only desparate last hope. It's like attempting to treat acne in a person with skin cancer. Cancer is still there, and there is no circumventing it.
The bottom line is that the fossil record is much stronger in support of intelligent design than in random, chance-based evolution.