Slashdot Mirror
Using Copyrights To Fight Intelligent Design
An anonymous reader writes "The National Academies' National Research Council and the National Science Teachers Association are using the power of copyright to ensure that students in Kansas receive a robust education. They're backed by the AAS: The American Association for the Advancement of Science." From the release: "[they] have decided they cannot grant the Kansas State School Board permission to use substantial sections of text from two standards-related documents: the research council's 'National Science Education Standards' and 'Pathways to Science Standards', published by NSTA. The organizations sent letters to Kansas school authorities on Wednesday, Oct. 26 requesting that their copyrighted material not be used ... Leshner said AAAS backs the decision on copyright permission. 'We need to protect the integrity of science education if we expect the young people of Kansas to be fully productive members of an increasingly competitive world economy that is driven by science and technology ... We cannot allow young people to be denied an appropriate science education simply on ideological grounds.'"
We cannot allow young people to be denied an appropriate science education simply on ideological grounds
So that's exactly what we're going to do! Instead of getting mostly science with a bit of creationism thrown it, now it's no science at all. Good job denying the young people a science education and punishing the people not responsible.
Holy crap! Two wrongs DO make a right!
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Luckily, the offical text of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is published under a free license!
Do you consider astronomy a soft science?
They are making a point.
Do you think the parents of Kansas will allow their children to go to schools who do not have the materials to teach science? The idea is to make a ruckus, raise the profile of the idiocy of the Kansas Board of Education, who are basically quietly destroying science education as Dorothy knows it in Kansas.
Now, if Kansas parents collectively shrug their shoulders and say,"Well, no science is Ok.", then they deserve to have their children shut out of every known college/university/whatever-you-name-it in the world (not just the US). Of course, in this case, the children become the victims. But, chances are the KBE will be voted out post-haste before they have a chance to reach this level of idiocy.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
[Taken from http://abstractfactory.blogspot.com/2005/10/only-d ebate-on-intelligent-design-that.html ]
The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject
Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---
(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)
Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?
(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)
Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!
Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.
Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!
Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!
Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!
Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.
Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullpoop sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!
Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
It's about durned time somebody rekonized that we wuz put here by Ayleens! I luv Intellegent design!
____________________________________
-- I beleve you'll like this -->
Not "people who believe in God are stupid". I believe in God, and I'm not stupid. I am, however, vehemently opposed to this sham of a theory being compared with well-established principles of modern biology.
ID is not a theory. It is a fantasy. Behe's defense of ID amounts to the Chewbacca defense.
Anybody who attempts to position ID as scientific theory is a liar.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
How also can they deny Kansas fair use quotation of parts of their standards documents?
Oh wait, it gets worse!
Therefore, despite much outstanding material contained in the standards, we have no choice but to ask the KSBE to refrain from referencing or quoting from NSTA Pathways in the KSES.
Refrain from REFERENCING them? That's nuts, out of control.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
In most standard treatments of arithmetic, 1+1=2 by definition of the symbol 2.
The scary part:
Evolution does have reproducable results via experimentation. Biologists, Geneticists, Medical Doctors, and many others have been documenting it for years.
"Intelligent Design", while not distastful to me in light of my religious background, is an idea with no support from reproducable study. It's just an idea that has been shoehorned into our gaps in knowledge, and thus when those gaps in knowledge change, it will have to change too.
So while bacteria are mutating to be antibiotic resistant, animals are changing both form and social function due to human impact on the environment, and scientists in laboratories are using evolution principles to alter DNA- psuedo-scientists take advantage of the fact that verifying first hand the effects of macroevolutionary process would require a study over a million years or more.
So while the scientific community withdraws it's wisdom from the school system, the luddite get to have their day in the sun.
Shame for the widthdrawal of copywrite. Shame on the Intelligent Design proponents for being so stuck on a belief that they have no problem being discriminatory.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
I happen to think that Intelligent Design is stupid (albeit considerably less stupid than the "scientific creatonism" it replaced). But I fail to see it as so incredibly heinous that it requires Slashdot to abandon its previous principled stance on the abuse of copyright and the right of fair use. How can you wail loud and long about Microsoft, The Church of Scientology, etc. to abuse their copyrights, but when The National Academies' National Research Council and the National Science Teachers Association do the same thing, then the ends justify the means? Fair use for me, but not for thee?
Evidently any principle can be compromised if you hate your enemies enough.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Learn the truth about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, essentially intelligent design with the diety replaced by the flying spaghetti monster. No more provable/disprovable than ID, and lots more fun.
Remain calm! All is well!
Just as we must constantly update students' computers and books, updating science and core academic curriculum is essential. Keeping them in the dark with an antiquated, unproven teaching theory is impractical and unhealthy. The theory of evolution remains simply that, a theory. Evolution was used by Charles Darwin to explain the unexplainable.
A newer, alternative view provides balance to the age-old argument, pitting creationism against evolution. It's called intelligent design. It studies the science of intelligence or intelligent life. It says the universe shows evidence for design. I don't think any would argue that we are all intelligently and uniquely designed.
You can believe what you want about who created the world and what's in it. As a Christian, I know it was Jesus, but intelligent design doesn't require belief in Jesus. Students can make up their own minds or develop their own opinions about who they believe the "Creator" is. Intelligent design is not creationism or naturalism; it simply follows the empirical evidence of design wherever it leads.
Darwinists describe evolution as "merely change" in living organisms. How absurd. We just changed from one being to the next? If that's the case, who is responsible for that change? How did we come into being before we changed? These are the questions that intelligent design allows students to probe no matter who they might believe is the author of that design.
Opponents to creationism and intelligent design argue that school science classes should focus on genuine scientific theories. Well, evolution certainly fails that test. And to simply say intelligent design is not a genuine scientific theory is simply an opinion, not fact. Intelligent design can and has been proved scientifically.
Intelligent design is accepted by religious and nonreligious academics and scientists; supported by microbiologists and mathematics. In a Natural History Magazine study, three proponents of intelligent design summarize their findings this way:
* Every living cell contains many ultra-sophisticated molecular machines.
* Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic signature.
* Darwin's finches and four-winged fruit fly theories cannot account for all features of living things.
You miss the point.
It is to raise the profile of the KBSE : gain some much needed media-time to point some fingers. And threaten the whole state of Kansas with the stigma of pariah-dom with the rest of the US.
Sure, Kansas can still teach what their KBSE call "Science". But without the endorsement of these two bodies, they will have a harder time convincing the rest of the world that they are teaching "science". This has nothing to do with scientific process, it has everything to do with playing politics. Okay, scientists suck at politics, but well, they don't always have to be. Think Huxley.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
According to your idea, Art history is science.
Sad that piddling language parsing, legalese, even copyright are what the American Thinkers have to trot out to "win" the debate with the American Believers. How did the intellectuals lose this one --> we had the religious sitting in public classrooms for decades, being taught science and certainly being taught evolution, with blind religious belief kept strictly separate from the curriculum.
Now, less than half of the U.S. "believes in evolution?"
Even I grew up in conservative Catholic schools, but I was taught evolution. It's not as if the majority of Americans were taught creationism in school. We've lost this battle on two fronts: in the classroom, obviously, where we're in complete control and we've no excuses, and then in the churches and temples across this country.
This is a massive, historic failure by American intellectuals and American education. Scientific methodology, philosophy, nay critical thinking have not been adequately communicated to the tens of millions of people who now also believe they, their country and their president "lead the world," "police the world," and are the world's "only Super Power." We have a Believer for what they call "the leader of the free world."
Here's a thought: 99% of us reading and writing here loved science and math class, we couldn't get enough of it. I still see some sigs here and there with "Jesus saved me and he can save you, too" appending an otherwise critically considered opinion. Generally speaking though, we're not blind Believers.
So I'm preaching to the choir, in some respects, except that rather than preaching I'm really saying: we've failed, failed the American people and in some regard the world, for at least one entire generation. What are we going to do about it?
It could be as simple as communication. Maybe the thinkers should learn to play organs and guitars, write some melodramatic music and stories about the origins of the universe, life and humankind. While marching around with candles and holding up portraits of Great Scientists, we can explain the afterlife (worm pudding), but in a comforting way ( maybe some of Thanatopsis?). We can discuss modding, karmatic /., and maybe Newton's third law of motion (action, reaction) so the congregation understands justice in a critically considered and organized nature.
If we dress science up a bit, teach it as Truth (not as right or wrong, but as critically considered and open minded). We could strongly recommend that all people, for all their life, attend a science class every Sunday morning.
I'm willing to propose that if families regularly attended science class together, we would all enjoy a more reasonable, and more peaceful world.
As much as we intellectuals have failed to "save" the believers, we can take a hard look at where this country has been since 2000 and say undoubtedly, that even moreso the believers have failed us all. Are not the biggest sinners walking this earth today also those most loudly denouncing sin?
BG
The problem is not the content of the philosophy of Intelligent Design. The problem is including that content in the science curriculum. It has nothing to do with science; it's proper place is in Comparative Religion, Philosophy, heck maybe even an English class.
The reason this is in the courts is because religious zealots are trying to inject their I.D. doctrine into the public school system under the aegis of "science" -- which it ain't. It's an end run against the seperation of church and state.
I don't know the origins of the Intelligent Design theory, but in it's current manifestation the raison d'etre is to get camel's nose under the tent.
It amazes me that anyone will simply settle for believing in ID (my family included) because it doesn't bother to explore or learn, it is simply settling for the idea that "oh, its too big and complex for me to understand, so some intelligent being must have done it, some greater person must have done it, so there is no point in me trying to understand it"
It doesn't matter 'who' or what created the universe or life, science is about discovering as much as we can about it. 60+ billion year old bones doesn't jive with ID or Christianity. There are thousands of ways to argue, but my point is that who cares... they are BOTH theories, and arguing that one is better or more right than the other is simply making yourself a zealot, and worthy of dispise, or worse, belittlement.
Its just sad that with so much information at our collective disposal, that we still have this kind of zealotry involved in simple things like presenting THEORIES...
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
As a Christian, I find the backlash against ID vaguely amusing. What needs to be understood is the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution.
I disagree with you entirely. Macro-evolution is, as you point out, a theroy, but it is a testable and falsifiable theory, and as such it conforms to the standard for a scientifi theory. ID on the other hand is neither testable nor falsifiable, and therefore a lovely theory, but not a scientific theory. Whether ID should be taught in schools or not is not the discussion point, but whether ID should be taught along side scientific theories in science class.
By all means, Kansas, teach ID as much as you wish. In some social-study class or other where it can be taught along side of Astrology, Divination, tea-leaf reading and the theory of the Abominable Snowman. Just not in science class.
Irreducible Complexity IS an example that something contrary to science should be taught.
The basic premise of the theory is "Here is an example of a simple organ that detects light, here is the human eye. The structures in the human eye are somuch more complex and intermingled with each other that it is impossible for it to have evolved on its own SO STOP TRYING"
Basic science looks at the two organs and wonder "How did one become the other, especially with one subsystem being so dependant on the other?" the difference is that the scientist keeps failing and keeps trying again. If he continues to fail he does not throw up his hands and say "it must have been designed that way". He continues his research.
Forgive my childishness but people that support Irreducible Complexity simply do not have the fortitude for proper research and have constructed a quick fix.
Because people who believe in God don't believe that ID should be taught as a science. Not all of them. Not even a majority.
If they called it "People who believe that ID is real science is stupid", then allowed all religious and non-religious people to poke fun at these idiots, then it'd be a bit better.
Deny access to Intelligent Design idiots of any product, medicine or otherwise, that was arrived at through evolution or science. Since there are so many "problems" with evolution, why trust medical breakthroughs based on it? Why not just pray to this intelligent creator to drop down on Earth cures to all common ailments.
I think one of the crucial points you misunderstand about evolution is that life did not reach the many forms it is in today by "necessity". Necessity has nothing at all to do with evolution. It may be "necessary" for life to adapt to a hotter climate, increased UV radiation, or increased particulate matter in the air, but until random mutation brings about changes in living systems that might be advantageous in a changed climate, no such adaptations will occur.
planet texture maps and more
This sort of appalling misuse of copyright to advance ideology is another reason why standards should not be subject to restrictive copyright licensing.
No, I am not a "fundamentalist". In fact, I am an atheist who knows damn well that "intelligent design" -> "creationism" -> religion -> bunk. Nontheless I find this method of opposing the establishment of religion unacceptable.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
...unless school teaches about the Intelligent Designer also. That Intelligent Designer is Jesus Christ: The Creator of heaven and earth, the King of Glory, the God of Life. Without mention of Him, and the Atonement whereby He took upon Himself all the sins and suffering of the world, the study of Intelligent Design is a waste of time.
Jesus Christ should be the central focus of our heart, mind and soul - every minute of every day. All this other academic ciriculum is only skirting around the core issue.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
I'm not aware of any fossil evidence showing half-way mutated species.
Sophistry, again. How do you prove a given fossil is not half-way mutated? Oh, and if you'd like a living beastie, how about the duck-billed platypus?
The overall problem with your reasoning is that you're saying essentially: Since evolutionary theory can't be completely verified due to the absense of a working time machine (bidrectional), therefore any other theory that is not completely verifiable is also acceptable. Never mind that ID is 100% non-verifiable and is useless for precition, whereas evolutionary theory does have predictive value.
Remain calm! All is well!
How about these? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
...than people had feared.
... and you ignored them?" he asked.
According to this article that was posted to Fark yesterday... the school administration, aka the ones who voted to include ID in the curriculum, didn't even bother to research the concept at all.
A couple of choice quotes from one of the Einsteins on that board:
"They said it was a scientific thing," said Geesey, who added that "it wasn't my job" to learn more about intelligent design because she didn't serve on the curriculum committee."
and
"The only people in the school district with a scientific background were opposed to intelligent design
"Yes," Geesey said."
Grade-A fucking scary.
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
You claim that "The evidence in the fossil AND genetic record is ubiquitous" for half-mutated organisms. Could you please provide me with some of this ubiquitous evidence? One link will do.
This is the third call for some "ubiquitous evidence" I've seen in the comments attaches to this article, and none has been provided.
It seems to me that, as it takes too much effort to find some "ubiquitous evidence", you're resorting to calling my request "bullshit".
Ashton
(-(friend^2))^(1/2)
Incoming mod-bombing for having a different viewpoint, 2 o'clock! Heads up!
One can always tell that it is an ID-er when he/she starts to use the words theory in bold, and say that it is "just a theory".
An ID thesis has the following components :
(a) A slipshod definition of what the word "Theory" actually means to them.
(b) A promotion of ID into a Theory by assertion.
(c) With this promotion, directly compare ID to Evolution, with the hope that the reader will think that ID actually has as much evidence behind it as evolutionary Theory.
(d) Finally, a series of anecdotal evidence, usually presented in bullet form and almost always wrong/falsified, of ID.
Boy, putting those Bold tags is hard work. How do they get through life?
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
Hah. I hadn't thought my sig would ever be so relevant.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
No, your argument is a misrepresentation of what I said. I'm not claiming that ID is acceptable because macro-evolution isn't verifiable, I'm claiming that neither should be taught as fact. Both (or neither) can be given as possible explanations for the origin of life. Of course, other theories would then need to be included for it to be fair at all.
"Sophistry, again. How do you prove a given fossil is not half-way mutated?"
All that needs to be shown is several fossils demonstrating gradual change from 1 species to another.
You don't need to prove that "a given fossil is not half-way mutated". One only needs to show that there are fossils either side of it mutation-wise.
Thanks for taking the time to think through your argument, as well. Many of the replies in this discussion have been by ACs who don't present any logic, just insults; yours is a breath of fresh air.
Ashton
(-(friend^2))^(1/2)
Incoming mod-bombing for having a different viewpoint, 2 o'clock! Heads up!
This is a straw-man argument and it comes up so often that it's virtually a new category of troll.
Fact: Slashdot readers love copyright. The GNU General Public License is a document that depends on copyright. It is a license that documents the terms under which the software developer grants a license to use, copy, and modify the copyrighted work. Fail to comply with the terms and the license is revoked, at which point the customary laws regarding copyright infringement apply.
I don't hear too many people "wailing long and loud" about Microsoft's copyrights. I hear them wailing about Microsoft's crappy software and anti-competitive business practices, but that's not the same thing.
I don't hear anybody "wailing" about the Church of Scientology's copyrights, either. I hear them wailing about what a crackpot so-called religion Scientology is and how it bilks emotionally vulnerable people out of their money.
No principle is being compromised here. I see lots of debate about the National Science Teachers' Association's decision in this thread, in fact, which is a sign of a healthy, engaged public. Please crawl back under whatever dogmatic bridge you came from.
Breakfast served all day!
What about the archaopteryx? Assuming this is what you mean by a half-mutated species, it is in many ways half-way between a dinosaur and a bird.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ideology
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." Mark Twain.
Half way mutated is very open to interpretation of course. However one example that I've always felt was fairly compelling are the feathered and flying dinosaurs. They've always come across as a fairly good bit of evidence to support the theory that some dinosaurs developed into what we call birds today. I do haev to wonder though. Since you're making a distinction between micro and macro evolution, how to you explain new species showing up in the fossil record at all? I mean it seems to just make sense that over time small changes are enough to result in something new. It's a much more compelling and scientific conclusion than "Well, a designer put them there then." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs
Never mind that ID is 100% non-verifiable and is useless for precition, whereas evolutionary theory does have predictive value.
Irrelevant, just like most received wisdom about the definition of science.
Suppose an Event A occurs, and a scientist predicts on that basis that an Event B is soon to follow. Event B does follow, so his prediction receives support. His explanation makes no other unambiguous predictions.
Now suppose a different scientist, knowing nothing about the first, arrives at the same explanation. The only difference is, he thinks of his explanation only after observing both events.
Is the explanation of the second scientist not science simply because it fails to make predictions, but only explains data?
Prediction CAN be a useful aspect of science (say, for engineering purposes), but it is not a necessary one.
If conservatives don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu? :-)
If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
The definition in the antecedent post was incomplete. If they're different species, they can't produce fertile offspring.
For example, when Kansas State Board of Education chairman Steve Abrams has sex with monkeys, I would not at all be surprised if offspring are occasionally conceived. And due to his views on abortion, they will of course be brought to term if at all possible. However, those sad little creatures will never produce children of their own, because Steve Abrams is a different species of monkey from those commonly available for fornication in Kansas.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
>Anybody who attempts to position ID as scientific theory is a liar.
Exactly what is with the strong feelings of hatrid towards ID? How objective are people when there are such strong emotions?
There are lots of "wrong" scientific theories out there no matter how you define "wrong". Peak oil, pyramids, bigfoot, what makes the stock market move, the composition of the earth's core. Take your pick but I don't see the same level of emotions.
From what I can tell people hate ID because of ID's backers personalities, not because of the scientific theory.
And the scary thing is that these are the same people who claim the ID backers are not being "objective".
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Ahhh...the classic gaps-in-the-fossil-record complaint. The funny thing is, whenever scientists find a new fossil that fits into one of these gaps, the Creationists don't see that as evidence for evolution. On the contrary, now there are two gaps, instead of one.
Evolution is indeed scientific! For starters evolution is based on objective evidence found in the world. ID is based on the idea that we "feel" that things look designed. (It's an adjusted teleological argument for crying out loud! It has the same flaws.) As for disproving evolution. Just finding a fossil that couldn't possibly exist in the current model alone would raise serious questions if not provide outright disproof. (Human skeleton in precambrian era would do that!) As we continue to study the fossil record and the genetic maps of creatures so far evidence continues to support the theory of evolution. It's quite possible that they could not! That's science my people! I mean how do you explain things like the ~98% genetic similarity between human beings and chimps. We obviously aren't chimps and chimps clearly aren't humans. However once again this FITS with the idea that we would have a common genetic ancestor.
Another comment: people are insulting you because you haven't done your homework. It's like someone saying "calculus is a crock" without having basic algebra skills. Read some Dawkins. Scour the talkorigins.org site (they put forth some of the falsifications you are looking for). Evolution is science. Intelligent design is not becase you can't falsify the statement "life was created by an intelligent designer".
The FSM was invented for a purpose. The people pushing intelligent design claim to want to show that both facts and logic require us to conclude some supernatural force is necessary to bring about evolution.
Which force is usually left unsaid, for that would clearly expose the motivations behind ID. But we all know which force ID proponents have in mind - namely Jehovah, the god of Moses.
With the introduction of the inflammatory FSM, ID proponents are forced to show themselves for what they are - that is, supporters of a Christian, not a scientific, agenda. In other words, cards on the table.
You're welcome. But you're employing sophistry when you say because our current knowledge of the mechanics of DNA mutation cannot predict exactly when "macro-evolution" (do you mean speciation?) will occur, therefore a 100% faith based theory is equivalent to one that provides an accurate statistical prediction in short-life-spanned creatures, and can be used to produce repeatable results and explain the rate of fossil change over time.
Look, you're welcome to your faith, and should I see you proselytizing in the airport I wouldn't bother you (unless you get in my face like a Hairy Fishnut). But, this slashdot article is about the attempt to use the apparatus of Kansas government to force the teaching of a faith-based theory in science class, to the children of those who have no use for it. Even if no direct harm is done to the kids (such as making them ineligible for med school or life sciences research), the time given to the teaching of ID comes at the expense of something useful that could be taught.
You're welcome to screw up your own kids. Don't fuck with mine.
Remain calm! All is well!
That is true. Christian ideas are based on dogma and lore. Dogma and lore are not scientific.
No it isn't. If your scientific observation is guided by something other than a scientific process, then by definition it isn't a scientific observation.
Sure. Explore it all you want. It has been explored for thousands of years. You can explore the idea that the earth is flat too if you want. Just because some people are exploring it doesn't mean we need to start teaching that to children in science class. Teach that myth the same place we teach the other myths - in religion or humanities classes or the like.
Scientific theory begins with an observation, and then creates a hypothesis to explain the observation. Darwin's Evolution theory tries to explain that we humans evolved from creatures that had traits similiar to ours that were passed down from offspring. To help explain this Natural Selection was introduced to show that some bad traits will occur and because of that, they will have a lesser chance of survival in the wild. The opposite is considered true as well, the better the traits the better chance of survival. You know you've heard this many times, but since you have taken the non-falsifiable path, it must be mentioned.
Newton also observed something too, and after many years of testing, the scientific theory of Gravity has been generally accepted as a law. Granted law and theory mean relatively the same thing in the science realm, it was and still is a theory. Can the law of gravity be falsified? Sure, just find a test that makes the tests invalid! (By the way, it is really damn hard to make a test that proves gravity is false.)
Same thing applies with evolution. We have collected evidence for a very long time, and, although incomplete, the evidence we have collected so far says that the observation recorded and explained by Darwin is correct. However, that does not mean that Evolution is guarenteed to be the explaination for the rest of eternity, it just means that: We have data, we're following his procedures, and according to his tests, his hypothesis is true. We're following scientific theory to the tick, so what if we haven't found a way to falsify it? Be a scientist and actually TRY to falsify it, rather than just claiming it is false.
Now the problem with ID is, it basically says "God did this, and this is why it is so", yet it provides absolutely no way of testing, nor anyway of falsifying it. According to almost every religion, god is always right, so if you say "god made it so", how can you falsify it? Also how can you test it? Where's the observation of when god decided it was going to be that way? Why did god do it that way? What was god thinking when the decision was made? For what purpose does this creation exist for? There are too many questions that cannot be answered, and absolutely no way of following scientific theory. Therefore: ID can't be considered scientific and cannot be taught in a science class.
No I am not religious, but I do believe in at least one god because there is no conclusive explaination to why the universe exists and why I am here.
[!] No, I can't see my comments. They are not worthy of +3 moderation.
This about.com article has a fairly good explanation of why evolution is considered falsifiable. As for a half-way mutated species, all species can be considered halfway mutated; evolution is continuous.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
To my mind, it's a pity that basic history of science and history of religion is not taught in schools. It might come as a shock to a lot of Americans to discover that a lot of the people who discovered that Creationism was bunk were mostly ordained clergy in the Church of England (==Episcopalians), working in Cambridge in the 19th century. As they gradually understood the geological history of the Earth and the fossil record, as they took on the ideas of evolution, the sheer weight of evidence caused a lot of them to re-think the basics of their faith. In other words, it was the people with the theological background - men who could easily read the Bible in the original, which is more than I imagine the Kansas Board of Education can do - who accumulated and accepted the evidence that the Bible could not be literally true, and had to think out their theology based on the new discoveries. The -I choose the word with care- garbage that is Intelligent Design is part of a trend of thought that any well educated student of theology will know is fatally flawed. So why is this discussion still going on?
The problem, of course, is that a lot of religion in the US grew in a cultural vacuum. It took place on the frontiers, well away from the academic world in Europe (and the East Coast.) That's how ludicrous religions like Mormonism were able to evolve: uneducated people with limited vocabularies didn't realise that prophets with names like Moron and Ether were either the result of ignorance or exploitation. It hurts me to say this, because I have relatives descended from a family member who was on the first of the Mormon treks to Utah and they are fine people. But they have also not had the educational opportunities of the English side of the family, who in recent history got their educations at Cambridge, Oxford and London and as a result regard both Mormons and Southern Baptists in much the same light as Wahabis or Hassidim. It's extraordinary that George Bush senior, for whom I have a lot of time, is an educated man who knows that Christian fundamentalism is deeply flawed, while his son claims to embrace it. But it's just like an educated Pakistani or Iranian struggling to understand why his son is picking up aggressive (and regressive) ideas down the madrissah.
Until I found that people were still taking this stuff seriously, I used to think that Richard Dawkins and Jay Gould protested too much. But now I realise that there is a huge tide of reaction in the US, and that it needs to be stopped and reversed or it will ultimately lead to new wars of religion. It's absurd to watch American politicians attacking reactionary Islam and claiming to spread democracy while being prepared, in support of reactionary Christianity, to reduce women's rights. Theologically, I suspect all fundamentalists are much the same at bottom, and they are never happier than when they are either fighting fundamentalists of different religions, or fighting non-fundamentalists of their own religion.
Pining for the fjords
And for some more concrete examples, see here.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Ironically, one of the reasons I've sent my daughter to a Catholic school here is that they teach evolution. They also mention that people who view the bible literally don't believe in evolution; but evolution is taught in the science class as science. Being a Catholic school gives them the freedom to make the simple statement about the literalists without there being a problem with the separation of church and state.
If, however, there had been no school in our area that taught evolution, I would have taught it to her myself. After all, that's what we're here for, isn't it? Any idiot can make sandwiches. It's times like these when you get a chance to actually parent.
There's an important point that the creationists miss in all of that. Kids will still be taught evolution regardless of whether or not they get their way with the standards. 99 percent of the parents in this state will tell their kids that evolution is fact. Some of the rest will find themselves explaining evolution simply to inform their kids about the debate. Still more kids will simply hear it from eachother or from media, the internet, etc.
Everybody will hear or learn about evolution, and the standards won't change which side of the debate people fall on. This whole thing about changing the standards is not only idealogically questionable, it's not practical or effective. They're achieving nothing but ridicule.
I for one hope that the board members continue to vocally extoll their positions and beliefs here; because the more they talk, the more unreasonable they sound. Like most of the ultra-conservative movement in this nation, the Kansas Creationists are running headlong for a backlash.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
How do you prove a given fossil is not half-way mutated?
More to the point, anyone who thinks that evolution predicts "half-way mutated species" doesn't understand the claims of the theory. There are no mutated species, just mutated genes. Once a gene persists in a population, it's no longer a mutation, but a variant. And, species do vary, yes? This is clear. The mechanism by which they have come to vary is evolution, according to science. Or, if it is "Intelligent Design," fine, but that is not science, it is magic by definition.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Thank the FSM
Pastafarianism wins again!!
Actually, humans and gorrillas branched off from a common ancestor which is now extinct, so Gorrillas are not our ancestors. The common ancestor was apparently very close to a modern gorrilla though so it's barely a correction. Besides, your argument is still correct regardless.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
I remember from my AI class in college that we don't even have a concrete scientific definition of intelligence. So then how can "intelligent design" even be a topic of discussion? We should show students that there is an amazing and remarkable pattern in the evolution of species and in the complexity of their composition, and that this pattern extends throughout the universe. But what to conclude from this pattern is either: 1) It appears to be a pattern only because if the universe weren't so ordered, we wouldn't be here to perceive it in the first place (anthropic principle). This would also lead you to think that there must be an infinity of universes: a continuum infinity of dud universe that have bad physics, and a countable infinity of successful universes that have good physics which actually work out. 2) There is only one universe, so some huge meta-physic must guide its processes. Some may call this meta-physic God. From (1) you might also decide that we're actually living in a dud universe, since it really is breaking down. Who knows, maybe it's nothing more than a flash-in-the-pan pop, and there are actually far more elegant and robust, eternal universes out there.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
You claim equivalence of ID and evolution in this statement:
I'm claiming that neither should be taught as fact. Both (or neither) can be given as possible explanations for the origin of life.
You also include a straw-man, "the origin of life". Evolutionary theory does not explain the existence of the universe either. So what? It is not directed towards origin of life or existence of the universe. That does not diminish its utility in explaining and predicting how species change over time. Once again, sophistry: Look, evolution doesn't explain X! Therefore it is just as faith-based as ID! (or you could call this Chewbacca science)
As one (evolutionist) poster said earlier, ID and evolution are both MODELS.
I did not write that quote, but since you cite it I will take it that you claim ID provides a "model". Ok, what does it model--what can I use it to model and make a prediction of when an event will occur?
Finally, would you please explain what you mean by "macro-evolution"? I don't want the goal-posts moved on me if I try to respond to anything you say about "macro-evolution". Is it speciation?
Remain calm! All is well!
When just about every culture has a creation myth, doesn't that mean that evidence that supports a supreme creator's existence might be worth exploring?
No. That's the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity, and even that's a force-fit because the supernatural entities of various religions are often vastly different.
Ideas aren't necessarily with merit simply because a lot of people throughout history believed them.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
For a creationist: micro-evolution means whatever evolution has been shown to occur and macro-evolution everything that has not been shown yet. In that sense the distinction is completely self-consistent and it is tautological that evolution has not shown macro-evolution to occur. But of course it's a logical scam. Try to give a rigorous definition of species, I dare you.
A theory being scientific does -not- mean that it has been proven true or false. It means that it can be proven true or false, and that it is based on empirical observations of the natural world. Evolution meets these criterion, it can be tested using the scientific method. That doesn't necessarily mean that such testing will be "easy"-the existence of very many things must be proven indirectly, human beings haven't visited Mars, but we know it exists. No human or their equipment has ever been anywhere near a black hole, but we can be pretty certain that they exist. We haven't quite gotten a thermometer to the sun yet, but we can make a pretty accurate extrapolation of its surface temperature from what we know of heat, mass, and gravity. The fact that something has not been directly observed does not by any means that evidence cannot exist for it.
Same thing here. For one, the main point (speciation) which would make macroevolution possible is observable and provable. This is evidenced by everything from Darwin's visits to the Galapagos, to the unique Australian species, to yeast cultures in laboratories. That is observational evidence, and that is the definition of science. Granted, the theory can't be said to be "proven", but no scientist worth a crap ever considers a theory proven beyond any improvement anyway-just evidenced well enough to use as a working model. Evolution is to that stage.
On the other hand, ID could at -best- be said to be based on "negative" evidence-I don't believe the theories as to how this occurred naturally so it must have been designed. It offers no testable predictions (as evolution offers speciation and that the fossil record will grow increasingly more complex, both of which are testable and have been proven). It offers no evidence, other then some old books which have been in the hands of some very corrupt organizations known to have manipulated the public through religious propaganda. That hardly qualifies as a counter-argument to the fossil record in my book.
Last but not least, intelligent design -requires- creationism. Why do I say this? Well, let's look at it logically.
Anything which can come into being through the application of conscious thought by utilizing natural processes can by definition occur naturally and by chance. Therefore, any proponent of ID who acknowledges that evolution occurred but claims it was "set in motion" tacitly acknowledges that evolution could've occurred naturally. That doesn't mean that such a thing is likely (a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters would take a very long time to make a meaningful sentence, let alone the complete works of Shakespeare), but if that "meaningful sentence" can take things from there and reproduce and evolve on its own, it's a lot more likely. Therefore, to state that ID negates even the possibility of evolution, one -must- argue that the "intelligent designer" possessed and used abilities -outside- of the normal laws of nature.
Now, here is why that is not, and cannot be, science-there is no EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for the existence of such a designer. Absent empirical evidence, such "theories" aren't scientific theories at all. They are conjecture, or religion, or philosophy. Not that those things don't have their place. But that place is not in a science classroom.
In closing, here are the four essential steps of the scientific method, and why evolution passes where ID fails:
ID does pass this, it observes and describes the existence of life, as does evolution.
Evolution hypothesizes that life came from extremely simple forms of life which evolved through the processes of micro and macroevolution to more complex forms. This process is testable, falsifiable, and empirical.
ID doesn't really put forth a hypothesis, in the sense that such a hypothesis would have to be testable, falsifiable, and be
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
At the very least you could correctly CITE your sources.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy75.html
Yeah, I found the page you're copying from.
And since you're using that person's argument as your own, it is up to YOU to defend it.
First off, start by learning that "species" does not mean "individual".
And saving a redwood does not mean that the human race will suffer.
>>This is called micro-evolution, and in fact the large majority of Christians have no problem with it.
Actually the large majority of Christians (aka Roman Catholics) have no problem with macro evolution. It's official doctrine. It's based in the ancient Christian belief that the understanding the Universe is one of the best ways of understanding the God who created it. The idea that the workings of the world itself is as much a testament to God's will as the Bible. It's the minority of hardcore evangelicals (who somehow seem to have a strangehold on middle America) who prefer to believe that hard evidence must always give way to their fixed, particular interpretation of scripture.
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
You vastly oversimplfy the scientific process. Read some Stephen Jay Gould...or any of several others. Read Einstein. Scientific hypothesis almost never arise out of science. Logic cannot generate it's own hypotheses. Experiments rarely have the kind of serendipitious result that yield vulcanized rubber...and then it's ususally an engineering result rather than a scientific result.
Science almost always STARTS with a wild hypothesis for which there isn't much available evidence. (I.e., there's not much evidence that it's better than the current choice...which might even be no explanation at all. It's got to be consistent with known facts.) Once you have the hypothesis, you start looking for facts to verify it. Once you've verified it a few times, it graduates to a theory...but it started with a wild guess.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I'm sort of regurgitating some points brought up by Kenneth Miller that I saw on C-SPAN's coverage of a debate on evolution versus ID education at AEI. But he mentioned, among other things, one way in which the scientific method has been used to test evolution.
Most apes have 48 chromosomes. Humans have 46 chromosomes. Wholesale removal of a pair of chromosomes by mutation would almost certainly result in a nonviable organism. However, there is another possibility - that a mutation caused two chromosomes to fuse together into one (remember that the 46 human chromosomes are actually in 23 pairs). But this possibility presents the prediction that the characteristics of two chromosomes would be found sandwiched together in the human genome as one chromosome.
Since we now have the data from the Human Genome Project available, this prediction - stemming from the hypothesis that humans and modern apes have a common ancestor - can be tested. The ends of chromosomes consist of "telomeres", which are specialized and easily recognizable segments of DNA. By sequencing each chromosome, these telomeres can be detected. If two chromosomes were fused together end-to-end, there should be telomere sequences in the middle of a human chromosome.
Lo and behold, such a prediction was shown to be true - chromosome 2 contains the expected telomere sequences roughly in its center.
Now, this doesn't prove that humans and modern apes had a common ancestor. It does, however, lend additional evidence to that hypothesis. But that's how the scientific method works. You come up with a hypothesis, generate testable predictions based on that hypothesis, and then conduct experiments to test those predictions. The hypothesis is proven false when the testable predictions prove false. The more of these tests that the hypothesis survives, the more important it becomes as a theory worthy of acceptance into mainstream science - not as fact, but as our best current understanding of how something works.
On the other hand, ID produces no testable predictions of its own. Its survival is based on the false dichotomy between evolution and ID perpetuated by ID advocates - the claim that if evolution is tested to be false, then ID (nee creationism) must be true. This violates both basic logic and the scientific method - evolution and ID are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and in order for ID to be accepted as a scientific theory, it must produce testable predictions which, if proven false, would prove ID to be false as well. ID advocates raise no such testable predictions - all of their claims are actually tests of evolution, not of ID. Until ID can produce such predictions and can survive tests of those predictions, it cannot be regarded as a truly scientific theory.
Note that this isn't a matter of a lacking in the state of the art. Other scientific theories such as string theory can't currently be tested given today's technology, but they do produce predictions that, given sufficient advances in the state of the art, could be tested. ID doesn't even go that far.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There is a very powerful and positive reason to keep ID and Evoluton in the curriculum - depending on your point of view, neither may be good pure science, but both cause students and even grown up scientists asking very fundamental and serious questions. The kind of questions that lead some to dedicate their lives to finding answers that benefit all of us.
Questions like where did we come from. How do we explain major changes in speciation? Why are things the way there are? How did they become that way? How do things change? Why is there shuch diversity in life? Is there a God, flying spaghetti monster, higher power, or not?
Science fails when people stop asking questions - and when ideas are supressed by political means, questions that need to be explored are never asked. Even if you do not believe in god, or if you do, there is one thing about the evolution debate I've come to appreciate: real scientific discovery and real leaps in human knowledge only occur when people are allowed to question established beliefs. At present, evolution is an incumbent, accepted scientific belief, and as such should be questioned intensely. As the universe being created in seven days was before that. And the world being flat before that.
There is a reason that science is at a low point in America, and is has absolutely nothing to do with ID vs. evolution. Politics and patents have replaced discovery as the highest order of value for the professional scientist. That ID vs. Evolution is being debated in government halls instead of academic halls is a tradgedy of epic proportions.
-- $G
Which is understandable because you're getting your info from his page, even if you refuse to cite it correctly (and just copy it, word for word, including bolded text).I'm not asking you to correct his error.
I'm telling you that the source your source is correctly citing is incorrect because Darwin never said that.
Nor does the theory of evolution say anything about how any specific individual will behave. YOU can take that up with HIM.
It is possible for him to be wrong, yet for Darwin to be right. Even if he supports what he believes to be Darwin's theory.If you present it as support, it is your fault.
I've shown how the statement was in error because it did not correctly state what Darwin had written.
You can argue all you want about whether some guy who wrote something that wasn't peer reviewed is right when he doesn't quote Darwin correctly.
But the fact is that he did not quote Darwin correctly and Darwin's statement is supported by all the findings of the science known as Biology.
Species, not individuals.
Biology, not choices.
Hypotheses aren't scientific. "Science" is knowledge, and also the process you use to turn the hypothesis into knowledge. If something non-scientific (like scripture) is a part of that process (ie, you assume certain things to be true based upon it), then the process isn't science and neither is the result.
ID isn't derided by scientists for being a strange new theory, it's derided because it isn't a theory at all.
in science, a "theory" must be supported by evidence. there is not a single piece of evidence for ID and even if it were true there still would never be any evidence. it isn't bad science or strange science or controversial science, because it isn't science at all.
More relevantly, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Allah, Jehova, Menbari, Plain Old God, or Steve Gutenberg could do the creating through...evolution! Is there somewhere in the bible that says:
God created everything by snapping his fingers and saying "abracadabra", and you must take that literally. It is not a metaphor for anything, nor a simplification for easy consumption by your currently simple understanding, even though in about 2000 years folks will start to understand in more detail how God did it. This paragraph is being presented to you in 263 languages, including some that don't exist yet, so that nothing can be lost in translation for thousands of years yet...
Why can't God use effective tools such as evolution? Is it necessary for God to imagine stuff and it suddenly, immediately (even on OUR time scale) pops into existance?
I find people on both major sides of this argument to have their minds so very closed.
However, as far as teaching it in school...it is a religion, just like every other religion, and should be taught in a class where other religions are taught. To teach it elsewhere would be teaching a specific religion as more or less important than others, which is a Very Bad Idea.
Science classes are where one is taught what mainstream scientists are doing, which includes evolution, the observational approach to determining the mechanics involved in creation.
That book was written 2000 years ago, by people from that time (people, BTW, who were not JC himself but his friends and friends' friends), for people who weren't even literate, let alone able to understand advanced concepts such as hygiene or evolution.
With the advancement of science, as well as the advancement of the intelligence and cognizance (sic?) of the general population, we are in a position to understand stuff better. Why must religion remain in the same state it was 2000 years ago, and not advance with the rest of society? And why must people (on both sides) believe that accepting science means rejecting religion?
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
well, if you actually read the quote that you lifted from another website, you'd see that your counter example of the "human extinction movement" doesn't make ANY sense what-so-ever. A tongue-in-cheek philosophical/political organization of individuals has nothing to do with biology, nor does it have to do with a *species*, just individuals. Last I checked, there are millions of people having children...
and while the part you have bolded strikes me as strictly true but possibly ambigious, the more important bit is this "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory..."
which, as far as I know, still stands to this day.
btw, unless you've actually read the entirety of Douglas Futuyma's Science on Trial, or at least tracked down your own copy to verify that he hasn't been misquoted, it's extremely poor form to quote the text without properly citing that you are quoting it second-hand. As far as you know, Futuyma might not even exist.
>I'm not claiming that ID is acceptable because macro-evolution isn't verifiable, I'm claiming that neither should be taught as fact.
h tml#morphological_intermediates_ex3
Actually, species have been created in the lab (a type of californian seaworm and many new fruitfly species) and others have speciated in the wild under historical observation - flowers, rats, mice, others. Check out the talk.origins link below, they have plenty of cited examples of speciation. Natural Selection allows both accurate prediction and domestication - we wouldn't have dogs, brocolli or corn if "evolution" didn't work.
>All that needs to be shown is several fossils demonstrating gradual change from 1 species to another.
Very well. Please observe the change from Australopithecus to the various species of Homo, currently represented by H. Sapiens. The shades of variation are so slight through the fossil record, yet obviously showing a several million year span of evolution and change. Paleontologists will fight over whether a skull is Homo Ergaster or just a big-brained Habilis, but they will all agree that the fossils show structured, reasonable, natural changes that can be predicted by applying Natural Selection. There, fossils showing gradual, species-changing modification. Somewhere (probably at change to Homo?) the human lines lost chromosomes among other radical shifts. A modern H. sapiens could not breed with an Australopith, or no moreso than with a chimp. Unless you deny the actual existence of our ancestors, this shows both micro and macro evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.
The link has an example of what I'm describing, I also recommend the excellent "Extinct Humans" for further reading.
Akgoatley, I'm not sure where you fit on the opinion section, this is not personal: I don't understand where the controversy is, honestly. Anyone that passed high school biology should understand the basic processes of life, including Natural Selection and modern evolutionary concepts. "It's only a theory" is a bullshit argument, that people buy this shows the dire lack of scientific literacy in this country. This is people trying to deny reality and using fairy tales to placate themselves. If you need God to get through the day, I don't hold it against you. Don't turn this country into a 3rd-world theocracy because you're scared to know things. "Evolution" is only the first thing these American Taliban are after- they also question plate tectonics, the physics light and I'm sure plenty of other scientific concepts. I know this, because as a child I thrived at a 7th-Day Adventist school, but what they claimed was science, was not.
Science and technology drive this world. We are roadkill if we try to deny this - shame on Kansas for trying to shackle their children with theocratic garbage. I definitely support the AAAS in putting the copyright screws to them - this is effective political conflict.
Josh
We need a first generation of pioneers.
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
What I don't get is what does ID teach you that you can use in the real world?
Biology tries to teach you genetics [to a sort of limited mendel sorta way] among other things where the ID "theory" doesn't apply.
I mean why does this spliced plant have offspring that look different? Genetics? NO! it's gods will!!!! hahahahamauahahahah
Seriously. How can the ID folk sit there and think that's a rational course of thought when the experiments are REPRODUCIBLE!
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
This is a silly game - for every intermedite form produced you'll simply shoehorn it into one category of the other and say "but what is between those?". The world's supply of discoverable fossil's is very much finite, while you can keep splitting hairs indefinitely.
In practice Archeopteryx is between lizards and birds. Between lizards and Archeopteryx are therapod dinosaurs. Between early lizard like therapods and Archeopteryx are late more bird-like dromaeosaurids and between early dromaeosaurids like Troodons and Archeopteryx are various feathered dinosaurs, which includes fossils that simply had feathers, apparently for warmth, through to later fossils that actually had clearly flight adapted feathers.
Want to try something different? How about whale evolution? We can start with a land dwelling mammal that looked fairly dog like but had certain ear structures not found in other mammals that are more suitable for hearing underwater. Then there's ambulocetus which was similar, but in practice was rather akin to a mammalian crocodile, with back legs obviously adpated for swimming, the same ear structures as our first creature, and a nose structure, similar to a crocodile, that was ideal for breathing while immersed in shallow water. Next there are things like rodhocetus which is remarkably whale like, yet still posses back legs, and still has a nasal structure placng the nostrils toward the tip as in ambulocetus. There's aetiocetus which shows the transition from snout tip nostrils toward nostils at the top of the skulls as in modern whales. Then there's basilosaurus which is decidedly whale like, but lacking in a few modern whale features, and retaining distinct, but quite useless, hind limbs similar to those of rodhocetus.
You can find similar sets of forms for the development of horses, the development of snakes from lizards, and even for the ape to man path, among many others.
Oh, I'm sure you can parse those and say "but what's between that?", but I think for most people who are not being mindlessly dogmatic that represents fairly reasonable evidence of transitions from lizards to birds, or from land dwelling mammals to whales, an, if they bothered to do the extra research and reading, the development of horses, snakes and man.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
I'm not aware of any fossil evidence showing half-way mutated species. If someone knows of some, could they provide a link to a reputable website detailing this evidence?
Transitional forms abound in the fossil record. I think that is what you mean by half mutated species.Transitional forms are consistent with the idea of evolution. But I hesitate to call it a theory. It doesn't deserve to be. Evolution is a hypothesis that is consistent with lots (tons!) of observations. I say this because evolution still has no mathematical formulation. It has no predictive power. Compare it to well formulated physical theories like Classical Dynamics, Quantum Mechanics, or even softer theories like Marshall's Supply and Demand. They are not easily assailed by muzzy thinking. But Biologists have been easy on themselves for over 150 years! They have not developed deep mathematical understanding of the forces control evolution. They are still waving their arms. What is their response when attacked? The attackers are simpletons, visigoths, fanatics. No further discussion required! Not an impressive defense of a profound idea. When biologists develop the the rich mathematical foundations of evolution, which surely exist, the debate with creationists will end.
an ill wind that blows no good
Rightly so: some day the shoe may be on the other foot.
(And in the interests of disclosure, I'll point out that I am a Christian, and a creationist.)
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
Here is why scientists are trying to purge ID from science classes...
There is no scientific controversy about whether or not evolution took place, none, it is as thoroughly demonstrated as the theory of relativity. The only contraversy on the topic is in the United States from religious/political arenas. So to even teach in science class that there is some sort of debate going on would be to give a poorer science education, a better place to teach about the debate would be social studies, and the best place to study ID itself (disproven already) would be philosophy or religious studies.
It's not inappropriate to teach ID, but it's certainly inappropriate to teach it in science class.
Note that the lack of controversy refers to evolution, not abiogenesis, which many people seem to confuse, and there are plenty of technical details inside evolution which could be called controversial, but none at the level taught at high school.
I was interested in your link to flaws in evolution, because everybody says "evolution has holes" but I've never been able to find any of these holes which are supposedly common knowledge in America (I have been looking, I honestly do want to know the holes the in theory). The site you link to is kooky, it's not that they demonstrate complete scientific ignorance on the topics they discuss, for example entropy, it's that they must honestly think that every scientist overlooked such a glaring inconsistency - they must be pretty special. (So if anybody reading this can point me to a scientific account of holes in evolution, drop a reply)
As to why can't scientists yet perform abiogenesis with all of our scientific knowledge? I imagine the same reason we can't make a fusion reactor yet with all our scientific knowledge, or why we can't cure cancer or AIDS yet, or why we can't make carbon nanotubes in the lengths we want - we just don't know enough to do it yet.
You point about the Alien spacecraft at Area51 makes me wonder if I'm replying to a troll.
There is a fatal flaw in your logic--you are trying to define a term using 20th century definitions for terms written in the 18th century.
If you look at the essays concerning the 1st Amendment, you will find that it is *generally* agreed that this does not mean anything other than the government (federal, state or local) will not make any law that favors any ONE religion (or religious denomination) over another--and further that it will keep from making laws that aid any religion or denomination over another.
The so-called 'wall of separation' that was derived in the 1940's from a Supreme Court decision. The problem with this is that it comes from a LETTER written by then President Jefferson to a baptist group in CT when they wrote him to ask for intervention by the government in a religious matter. Basing a court decision on the constitutionality of a religious matter has caused the greatest rift in the US between believers and non-belivers that has ever been seen.
It cannot be said that our Founding Fathers were NOT religious--in fact they were. Jefferson was accosted on his way to church after being elected president and told that he should NOT be going . His response to the person was "No nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I as chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example. Good morning Sir." Jefferson himself wrote many essays on his beliefs---as did Franklin, Madison, and many of the others who framed the Constitution. It is often argued that they weren't Christians, but they were Deists--acknowledging God in many differing ways. That may be true--in the sense of being Christian as we see it today--that is, one who acknowledges Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and the instrument of our Salvation---the Final Sacrifice demanded by God. I won't argue that point.
I live in Pennsylvania, near the town of Dover. They are currently embroiled in a bitter court case over Intelligent Design. In their case, it is a mere 4 line addendum read by the teacher telling students that evolution is only ONE theory of the origins of life; that there is documentable proof that it may be a flawed theory, and that another is explored in a textbook (Of Pandas and People) that may be found in the school library. That's it..they're not *teaching* creationism, nor advocating relgion. They're not even *forcing* anyone to read the other theory, merely pointing out the fact that it exists and pointing out that evolution may be a flawed theory. Intelligent Design is a valid theory---as valid as Evolution, because the Evolutionary Origin of Man requires as much of a 'leap of faith' to believe that we came from single-celled organisms.
Yes, I'm a Christian..but I also believe the evolution has a *place* in our creation. We certainly have 'evolved' to live longer, be taller, and other things than even our RECENT ancestors. In that respect, evolution is a truth to me. Also, as a Christian, I don't want a teacher in the public school indoctrinating my child into a particular belief system. That's my job. BUT...I do want them to present *all* of the evidence and let my child decide.
In America today you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see, and nobody calls the c
That's it? "Half-way mutated", what ever that means? But you could just ask for a "1/4" and "3/4 mutated" species.
But if you want to see some examples of fossils that have turned up over the years, ones that share a great number of features of groups that are normally considered distinct, look up: _Acanthostega_, _Panderichthys_ and its fishy relatives, _Microraptor_, or _Ambulocetus_, none of which were well known until the last couple of decades -- i.e. they have turned up in places where there were formerly "gaps". I'm not providing any specific sites for them -- look them up yourself. The names are distinctive enough. You'll find creationist critiques of the conventional interpretation too. That'll provide balance.
So, if you ask for the "1/4" and "3/4" ones after you look at these, wait a couple of decades, and some of those may turn up too, as they always have. People critiquing evolutionary theory have been moving the goal posts like this ever since the 1850s. First it was "find me a transition between birds and reptiles", then _Archaeopteryx_ turned up. Then _Microraptor_ and a bunch of other feathered dinosaurs. Now, it is find me a transition between _Microraptor_ and other dinosaurs. Or make ever-more-stretched claims that these fossils are clearly one or the other "kind" of creature, eventhough you have to resort to minutae to distinguish them, and half the time the critics can't consistently decide which side a given fossil is on (e.g., in the case of _Archaeopteryx_ some anti-evolutionary creationists claim it is a dinosaur skeleton with feathers forged onto it, others as categorically claim it is a bird -- most scientists regard it as a bird, but a distinctly weird and transitional one by modern standards (teeth, long bony tail, claws on its wings, and other oddities) -- all relicts of its earlier ancestry).
Or find me a transition between fish and land vertebrates, then _Ichthyostega_ and _Acanthostega_ turn up, and people ask for still smaller increments of change between those (some of which do exist). Sheesh, these four-legged vertebrates were probably aquatic and couldn't even walk on land, and their skulls amazingly closely match the anatomy of slightly earlier fish like _Panderichthys_. Look only at the skull, and non-experts would have a very tough time telling which one was the "fish" and which was the "amphibian".
Yes, ultimately finding every single increment of change is predicted by evolutionary theory, IF the record is good enough, so the fossils might be expected to turn up someday; but it's a pity nobody notices that each time something IS found, the goal posts are moved by anti-evolutionary creationists to span ever tinier gaps. Ironically, that pattern of "shrinking gaps" matches what would be predicted as sampling improves. That's the test: that as we sample the fossil record, species regarded as distinct will get blurred together. Differences get smaller. And they do.
And, no, to forestall a common misunderstanding, even if species are changing with a punctuated equilibrium-type pattern, sometimes the tiny increments of change between those species do turn up too (but the record has to be exceptionally detailed).
The whole thing is like plotting a graph with just a few data points, and adding more and more points until a trend appears -- someone could always point to the space between two of the dots as an unbridgable "gap", all the while ignoring the ever more obvious trend as it builds up. Either that, or they could deny that the data points exist at all, or that the points are all mixed up, or some even more dubious claim (this is the situation where anti-evolutionary creationists start critiquing geology too).
Organisms decompose very quickly.Regardless, there are literally hundreds of thousands of transitional species and fossils. Study the damn science before you assert dumb ass claims that were made by your local lunatic religious person.
For some examples of living transitional species, look at dogs and wolves (which can be interbred), modern agriculture, and a few species of squirrels( On different sides of the Grand Canyon you'll find nearly identical squirrels, the difference being that on the side of the canyon that is higher, it is colder and you see that over time they've developed traits suited more for the climate and eventually became an individual species. Also if you take certain species of squirrels from say Pennsylvania and mate them with that same species from Ohio, they can mate fine, but try to mate it with a squirrel of the same species from California and it will most likely fail or be extremely hard to get to work because this species is on the verge of speciation where they form into two separate species that can no longer breed together.)
Anyone who claims that there is no evidence of transistional fossils or species is just plain and simple repeating non-sense, but no matter how much you say, it isn't true. Here is the known cladogram for just dinosauria, look at all transitions, and these are just the ones that have been found and proven, there are still large parts of the earth left to search, not to mention under the thousands of miles of ice at the poles which are currently unreachable but in the age of the dinosaurs were most liklely prolific with life. You kind find similar diagrams for *every* single species. When combined, it is huge, one of the biggest and best documented diagrams in all of man's history.
is a very truncated version of the cladogram for modern killer whales, the full cladogram contains significantly more detail. Please everyone stop spreading misinformation, this I.D. stuff is getting out of hand. The things I present here are just the beginning, actually look at the science in depth and realize what a well founded and proven theory evolution is.
Regards,
Steve
>>> "Sure. Explore it all you want. It has been explored for thousands of years. You can explore the idea that the earth is flat too if you want. Just because some people are exploring it doesn't mean we need to start teaching that to children in science class. Teach that myth the same place we teach the other myths - in religion or humanities classes or the like."
...]
....
... which I find hilarious. What's doubly funny is that a lot of people arguing against a creator argue for a big bang whilst cosmologist are moving towards alternate theories. And to cap it all the big-bang was proposed by a Belgian priest (LeMaitre) - I'd like to think that his faith inspired him at least in part.
...
/ sc0022.htm
[Here's a Christian idea
The big bang? Sure. Explore it all you want. It has been explored for tens of years. You can explore the idea that the Earth is flat too if you want
The big-bang, incidentally is an untestable event as by definition the established principles of physical science break down at the singularity (and how would we observe, a temporal action, before time existed). So, it becomes a matter of faith as to whether there were a big bang or a re-expansion or some other creative event [or none! like Newton, Maxwell, Einstein et al. thought]
I guess the big-bang is probably still the standard model. But every standard model I ever studied was proven to be inconsistent with observations
Oh well.
LeMaitre - http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science
Ahh. This is the sort of misinformation fluff that drives me nuts. This whole "theory vs fact" misinformation is the root of the problem. Those of us who studied, for instance, gas turbine theory wonder if someone out there actually thinks that gas turbines are just an unproven concept. Facts are not theories that were proven to be true. Why people think that I don't know. Perhaps they had bad science teachers. Perhaps poor media explanation, though that might be a chicken and egg thing.
There is really no such thing as a fact in science. Science is a methodology. It develops models of naturally occuring behaviour through testing hypotheses and their derived predictions against obseved phenomena. All scientific knowledge consists of models that are the most consistent with observed phenomena. That a model does not meet all observed phenomena does not make it invalid and to be thrown away. It means some areas of details of the model still require further understanding and development. "Theory" is a description of the principles behind the model, which is why, for instance, "gas turbine theory" doesn't refer to some people's crazy idea that gas turbines might exist. This whole "fact vs theory" is a hoax. It's made up. It doesn't exist.
"One only needs to show that there are fossils either side of it mutation-wise."
Again, poor understanding of the situation. All living beings, now or in the past, are in mutation. There seems to be this idea in some people's minds that evolution consists of a bunch of static species with well-defined boundaries that suddenly mutate into a different species (or something else). First, the exact differentiation of species is a product of man in an attempt to classify. While there are some clear differentiators, others are vague. Not everyone agrees where to draw boundaries. Second, the point of evolution is that no species is ever static. There is no before and after. There is no "half-mutated". There is just constantly changing. If changes in the environment happen more drastically over a short time, the evolutionary changes this envokes mike change faster, but is still isn't a sudden flip from one thing to another.
What I find the most humorous, and yet most annoying, is this picking on evolution as "controversial". It is only "controversial" to those who want something else to be used to describe how life got here the way it is. If they were truly being objective and picking on scientific theories (meaning princples behind a model, not meaning "guess"), why not pick on basic physic. Hell, we know Newtonian physics is wrong and yet keep teaching it in science class. Why? Because the model works for most practical applications the students will use it for. And it is simpler than relativity which has been shown to be a better model. However, we know relativity and quantum physics are incompatable, so both can't be right but both are the best working models for their respective applications. If indeed this isn't a religious driven objective, why is teaching evolution controversial and not basic physics?
The fact of the matter is, this is entirely driven by religious beliefs and by people who don't fully understand the reasoning or importance behind the separation of Church and State. You can dress it up in sheeps clothing, but it's still a wolf. I don't mean to come of as insulting, which I'm sure this does somewhat, but these principles have been understood for a long time and it is frustrating that people don't do their homework before opening their mouths. (I'm talking about Kansas and those behind ID, for instance, not anyone here. Everyonerequire a designer. The fact ID also fails to meet other basic requirements to fit the scientific method (testable, fals
You should say "as a Creationist". I know plenty of Christians who reject ID as pseudo-science, so I'm afraid trying to co-opt the word "Christian" to push a non-theory is just plain dishonest.
As to speciation, it has been observed. Now that you are aware that your world view is horse shit, I do hope you'll have the intellectual honesty to admit that you bought into lies by the likes of Michael Behe, who is at this time being made a fool of in court.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Does no one ask why Intelligent Design proponents are not clamoring to get their views into Chemistry, Physics, and other science classes besides biology? After all, every science has gaps in understanding or evidence. They all use theories, and since ID'ers like to trivialize the word theory with air quotes, why don't they feel their "theory" (which is actually a hypothesis or less) of an intelligent designer doesn't have a place in the other sciences?
This is obviously a rhetorical question - but I feel it is a clear example of the fact that the ID movement is totally an ideological, and political, movement bent on removing evolution from the classroom, and a dishonest movement as well. Their egotism concerning human origins is intense, so while an ID'er can ignore teaching physics students "some scientists believe the laws of physics were designed and put into place by an intelligent force", they cannot stomach a branch of science that to them makes humans less than the image of a god. Since they can't teach their Sunday School lessons in science class, they wrap it up to look vaguely like science, use a bunch of smoke and mirrors arguments, and get god into school that way.
The way I see it, religion is based just as much on repeated observation as science. I, and billions like me, have had first hand experience with things metaphysical which no one in science has ever come close to explaining. So if billions of people have witnessed it firsthand, why is it not science?
Answer: it's not science because it's not measurable, and only quantifiable at best through surveys and whatever. If so, it is no more and no less of science than psychology, philosophy, or any other soft science. There is a weakness to "science," and as long as it is taught like its own religion, these debates will always come up.
Still, I have nothing against a disclaimer in an evolution unit saying "this is called the Theory of Evolution. It is not a law because it has not been proven, and other theories exist." A simple disclaimer shouldn't offend anyone, except the legions of scientists who don't believe in being questioned (thus by definition invalidating their license.)
--Colin Jensen
colinandbethany.com
Sure. Although I have no idea why you'd saying that us having the same basic building blocks is non-falsifiable. That would be trivial to falsify if true.
Anyway: Humans and other apes evolved from the same common ancestor.
This could be falsified by, for example, discovering that humans existed before the other apes did, or discovering common genes between us, and, for example, dogs, that other apes do not share.
In fact, the mere existance of any animal on the genetic 'tree' that did not fit 'correctly' would be a rather large indication the theory of evolution was not true, like discovering a tree that fits into genetic tree quite well in the plant kingdom, except for the troublesome fact it manages to grown hair like mammals.
There as some 'cross-pollination' routes known where people get genes from bacteria and whatnot, but trees with hair would simply not be reasonable under any theory of evolution.
However, there are none of these falsifiably things. Often there is parallel evolution, like the eyes of the giant squid, but the genes that create that behavior don't match up at all.
If there was an intelligence designer, he operated exactly as evolution says various species came about. He took one thing and modified it and saved it under a new file name, went back and edited the old one, copy that, edited it some more, etc, etc.
He didn't copy and paste between files any, except for a few mishapen genes that do not actually work, and we've fairly certain bacteria did that. If there was copy and paste between species not able to mate, then that would be a fairly obvious falsification of evolution.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Brian: "Let me try and summarize this: God is His son. And His son is God. But His son moonlights as a holy ghost, a holy spirit, and a dove. And they all send each other, even though they're all one and the same thing?"
Charlie: "You've got it. You really could be a nun!"
Brian: "Wait a minute... what I just said, does that make any sense to you?"
Charlie: "Well, no. It doesn't make sense to anyone - that's why you have to have faith. If it made sense, it wouldn't have to be a religion!"
ID isn't [science]. Why? Because according to ID proponents, life is too complex to have evolved, and therefore there has to be a ID'er. See? Nothing to investigate, they already have the answer.
That isn't true. "Life is too complex to have evolved" is a theory; ID research (primarily using information theory) is to try to show that this is the case. If they succeed in showing that the Darwinian mechanism of variation and selection doesn't have the power to generate the complex information found in living things, then the search will be on for a mechanism that can do this.
ID has no proof to support it, evolution has.
And if ID can show what it is attempting to show, then Darwinian evolution will have to be scrapped in favor of something else.
Even if the theory of evolution isn't perfect (yet), that doesn't prove that ID is correct.
I don't know of anyone who claims that the imperfections in the theory of evolution prove the correctness of ID. The claim is that the problems with evolution should mean that a search for other answers should be allowed to take place. The flaws in evolution should be taught, and it should be legal to mention that there is a branch of science that is attempting to apply information theory to living things.
As a matter of fact, Darwin's theory of evolution is falsifiable. And here is one reason why it is false:
Darwinian evolution asserts that evolution occurs through the accumulation of minuscule random changes to the genome. If this were the case, there would be so many connecting species that the fossil record would be virtually a continuum.
What the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E shows, is that the fossil record is nothing like a continuum. Of the millions upon million of fossils which have been recovered, all of them fit nicely within a handful of phyla. Even fossils from Cambrian times already are separated into distinct phyla.
For Darwinian evolution to be true, the fossil record should resemble a conic section, starting from a point and spreading out evenly in all directions. There should literally be thousands upon thousands of connecting fossils which connect fossils to a whole host of predecessors and successors.
The real fossil record is nothing like that. Virtually fossils from the earliest times are segregated into phyla. Not only are there no connections between phyla, there are virtually no connections (links) supporting the major asserted jumps in evolution. Fishes eventually became amphibians, right? How many fossils support this conclusion? Tens of thousands? Thousands? Hundreds? None of the above. A single questionable fossil is the only link between fish and amphibians.
Men evolved from primates, right? How many fossils support this assertion? Tens of thousands? Thousands? Hundreds? None of the above. Less than a dozen fossils (fragments is a better term) support the assertion that primates evolved into men.
Evolutionists live in a fantasy world all their own where the lack of millions of connecting fossils is not an important issue. And the presence of a single questionable fossil establishes the "fact" that fishes evolved into amphibians. And less than a dozen fragments "proves" that primates evolved into man.
Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions stated that "that enterprise [of science within an established paradigm] seems an attempt to force nature into the preformed and relatively inflexible box that the paradigm supplies."
Evolutionists have fashioned for themselves a fantasy box in which they force nature into their inflexible fantasy, irrespective of the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. They are so scared that their precious box is about to split open that they can't even engage in rational discussions and acknowlegde the incredible weaknesses of their theory which is driving many to look more deeply and question (scientifically) all that is assumed to be true.
There is a scientific revolution coming, and the evolutionists are going to be on the wrong side of history.
Evolution is a fact. Darwinism is a joke.
Still, I have nothing against a disclaimer in an evolution unit saying "this is called the Theory of Evolution. It is not a law because it has not been proven, and other theories exist."
I do, because this implies fundamentally incorrect things about scientific laws and theories. Theories are never proven. Suggesting that a theory could somehow become proven and be law is dishonest. Laws are also not proven; they are simply a different type of statement in a science. Theories do not become Laws because Laws and Theories serve different purposes.
There's also the fact that no one is pushing for a disclaimer sticker for any other scientific theory, such as relativity theory, germ theory or atomic theory. Makes me question the motives of those pushing for evolution disclaimers.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
If I understand ID correctly, then any obviously complex system implies the presence of a designer. Such a designer, would themselves be reasonably complex. So, then who designed the designer? And who designed the designer's designer? Ad infinitum...
Why introduce layers of unneeded abstraction? I don't see how ID gets us any closer to understanding the universe around us. If anything it discourages investigating the tough issues -- it's too complicated for us mere humans to understand the will of the great designer.
Wanted: witty unique signature. Must be willing to relocate.
"The so-called 'wall of separation' that was derived in the 1940's from a Supreme Court decision. The problem with this is that it comes from a LETTER written by then President Jefferson to a baptist group in CT when they wrote him to ask for intervention by the government in a religious matter."
... functions with complete success ... by the total separation of the Church from the State.
...
You make it sound like this interpretation is based on a single letter. It's actually based on numerous documents and precedents. Most importantly, the writings of Madison, who was co-chair of the committee that wrote the first amendment. It was his wording that was chosen. Jefferson really only inspired it.
Interestingly, though, both Jefferson and Madison actively looked for cases for SCOTUS that would be precedents on these issues. They hoped to enshrine a wall of seperation by example.
The obligatory long list of quotes:
Every new & successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance.
-- James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
-- James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
The civil government
-- James Madison, 1819, Writings
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.
-- James Madison
The general government is proscribed from the interfering, in any manner whatsoever, in matters respecting religion
-- James Madison, 1790, Papers, 13:16
Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative.
-- James Madison, "Essay on Monopolies"
And it goes on and on... There are simply volumes of opinions by many founders on the meaning of the first amendment. And it's consistantly stressed that religion (not just church, as the oft-quoted phrase says) and government should never have anything to do with one another, even in minor matters.
As far as the rift... first, it's not just between believers and nonbelievers. It's mostly between those who want to stay true to the intent and wording of the constitution (who are mostly Christians) and the group of Christians that aren't happy with their values being abstracted into laws and that want their beliefs officially and explicitly reflected in government institutions. I can only say that the latter group are playing a game that endangers all parties.
Second, I see your point. This has been such as source of conflict. But the founders wanted to avoid the bloodshed of European wars of religion. I think modern Europe is only free of so much conflict because there are so many atheists that nobody really cares enough about these things to start a fight. In comparison, we are so much more religious in the US. Perhaps we inherited the least violent and most religion friendly system. Perhaps, it could have been much worse? I'd be interested in your opinion.
Biological evolution is just a special case of general evolution. If you DON'T want to accept biological evolution, you need to make a special argument about why general evolution should not be applied in this special area. I've never heard a good, or even a less than laughably poor, argument for this. This doesn't prove such arguments don't exist, or can't be made, but it certainly shows that they aren't common.
You won't find many people bothering to argue that apples are different than oranges, either.
There really is no theory of "general evolution" -- it is nothing more than a vague observation: lots of things change over time. The biological theory of evolution differs by including a mechanism that depends upon two crucial elements--hereditable variation and differential reproductive success. These are the core of the biological theory, and generally do not apply in realms other than biology.
I suppose if someone really wanted to enumerate the whole list of Design hypotheses, there shouldn't only be ID, FSM, or BSD, it should begin to look something like this:
This entire issue is not about science or religion - just follow the money. As Molly Ivans the journalist suggests - there are always two groups of people in any issue - those being screwed and those doing the screwing. What better way to make money screwing people - who will give away their money and/or time to religious institutions - who in turn are told that they (the donors) now can go screw someone because.... . Well because - this is where religions are "wonderful" - just make up any bullshit - to fit the situation and away you go - "bullshit always baffles brains". This is what muslim jihads are all about - not about religion - its power and/or money. What i find interesting - is that the folks in white lab coats have kept quite about this issue until recently - they may have to start justifying the $300,000 grants from the NIH and other tax based grants. We just may find out that the folks in white lab coats have been screwing us too.
Please don't tell me what I must do.
I think you misunderstood GP post. He wasn't "telling you what you must do." He was saying the bible does not have to be taken literally.
Yes, you've demonstrated that quite well by automatically assuming what I'm like.
Again, I think you are reading something into GP's comment. All he is saying is that there seem to be extremists on both sides of the issue, and they are very close-minded about the opposing viewpoint. A pretty fair assesment, I might add.
There are some truths that are eternal.
I agree that "some truths are eternal", but I don't agree with how you have used that statement to respond to GP's original comment of "Why must religion remain in the same state it was 2000 years ago, and not advance with the rest of society?". It makes you sound like a religious zealot, and quite frankly, makes everything you say suspect, no matter how well you articulate yourself.
Depends on how you define science, doesn't it? If by science you mean "the scientific method", then this doesn't mean rejecting religion. If by science you mean "the philosophy of naturalism", then the two will always be mortal enemies.
I think it's clear the GP was referring to the former.
"Why can't God use effective tools such as evolution?"
What does god add to that argument? If evolution is an effective tool that does the job without God's intervention then why does it need god to make use of it or invent it.
In my opinion, that's why god can't use evolution. If he used evolution, and the big bang, and whatever else science offers us, then it won't be long before bright young kids are asking, "so what does god do?".
Wanted: Clever sig, top $ paid, all offers considered.
Jesus H. Christ in a handbasket are you ignorant.
The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. For the lazy, a link to the word's definition http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory. For the stupid, what this means is that the Theory of Evolution is the best scientific explaination that we as humans have devised based upon the evidence available to us.
Your claim of the "obvious lack" of "millions" of fossil records is ignorant at best (I call it disingenious). It is based on the supposition that all mutations beget viable forms of life, which is provably false.
Having a training in science, and having therefore worked and studied with scientists, I feel safe to say that informed, rational debate concerning the "origin of life" is what most of us want of our public schools. Sure there are holes in our current explainations or maybe even they are way off, but science, in the end, will rectify that. The arguments put forward by Creationists concerning Intelligent Design are akin to sprinkling faery dust over the Theory of Evolution and saying that fills in the gaps. This is patently unacceptable to a mind that wishes to know how we, as organisms, came about and operate. This is why "Evolutionists" reject the teaching of Intelligent Design along-side of Evolution--because it is not science, it is some mysticism piggy-backing on science to explain the deficiences in said scientific reasoning.
As to the Thomas Kuhn quotation; human nature being what it is, can you not fathom how an individual responisble for one or more lives may make the mistake of ignoring pure scientific reason and allow concerns for reputation, or one's livelyhood to cloud one's judgement? When all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.
For all you ID'ers out there I pose this question (based upon my understanding of ID): if ID were proved to be true, not by the existence of a God or somesuch, but by the fact that all forms of life on this planet were seeded with genetic material from some extra-terrestrial agent (presumably intelligent life forms), would that be vindication of your "theory" or would it cause some religious indigestion and encourage some evangelicals to leap off of tall structures (we can hope!) ? And before you say "thats ridiculous, we aren't the spawn of aliens!" I would point you back to your own "theory". That the core genetic matieral of all life on this planet was seeded by aliens is as belivable and provable as if it were done by a "God".
You can be an atheist and still not want to succumb to some weird cross-over sheep disease -- AC
Exactly what is with the strong feelings of hatrid towards ID?
Think of the religion you find the most offensive or repulsive, and then imagine that the state is using your tax dollars to indoctrinate your children with it. For a lot of people that is enough reason to leave a country en masse and found a colony where everyone else shares their core beliefs or start burning effigies in the streets or whatever form of rebellion you fancy. So, instead here we have maybe something that is 1/100th as repulsive to some people but still smacks just a little of the government forcing a religion you don't believe in down your throat, and therefore you see angry posts on slashdot to that effect, rather than massive social upheaval or entire cities of people that believe in one version Christianity being slaughtered by one with a slightly different version and so on for hundreds of years until you're out of the dark ages.
It's a sensitive issue in other words.
critical thinking
If we had a populous that was capable of critical thinking it would be the end of commerce as we know it.
If we had a population capable of critical thinking then 90% of all advertising would not be effective. A lot of companies on top right now would not be on top. I am sure there are powerfull business interests that do not want a population capable fo critical thinking.
People would not buy a brand of toothpaste thinking it will help them get laid.
People would not buy humongous automobiles styled to look like war equipment just to feel more secure.
Political ads would no longer work. People would see them and just wonder where the money came from to pay for them.
But as this all plays out and the country becomes anti-science we will lose our competative edge in the world marketplace. Those business interests who wanted a population incapable of critical thinking will lose out.
Religion is the main cause of atheism.
> Fact: Slashdot readers love copyright.
:) here, let me clue you in to xenu.net where you can read up on what they do. Based on how Scientologists and Scientology-affiliated organizations have behaved (e.g. "Operation Snow White") I think they're evil crackpots, but they do *everything* they can with those copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets and patents to silence their critics as far as I can see. How many religions own their own law firm, after all?
No I don't. I hate it.
[Rant]
I want the Public Domain back sometime in my lifetime. The GPL is a means to that end, using copyright against itself, but if copyright were abolished, that would be a *good* thing to me. Yes, good. As RMS was recently quoted on Slashdot in a story about GPL version 3, the GPL derives its legal authority from copyrights, but its moral authority from the rights of the people. You lose only the right to restrict others by accident or design if you distribute or merge my source with your own (mere use of my work is explicitly *not* covered by the GPL). You remain free to make your own damn software if you don't like the conditions I and other GPL software copyright holders put on our work.
[End Rant]
And for the record, I give my own work away freely.
> I don't hear anybody "wailing" about the Church of Scientology's copyrights, either.
Then you aren't listening. Just in case you've been living in a cave (or basement?
Frankly, this strikes me as a publicity-whoring move by ID opponents. Whatever. I'll go with the science of evolution for myself, but I don't have either the time or the vitriol to tell every poor sod I can find on the Internet something like "OMG!!! YOU ARE A STUPED MORNO WHO DOESN'T KNOW WHAT SCIENCE IS!!!!! DIE!!@#~!#!@#!" for daring even to ask a question, when I myself can barely explain what ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny means, or whether or not it is outdated.
For someone w/ "endoplasmic" as part of their username you sound like you don't know fuck about evolution.
u m
Punctuated Equilibrium -- read about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibri
Obviously you believe in some kind of religious fundamentalism that forbids an open debate about religion. And yes pointing out fundamental flaws in a concept is discussion, even if done by means of jokes.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
If they succeed in showing that the Darwinian mechanism of variation and selection doesn't have the power to generate the complex information found in living things, then the search will be on for a mechanism that can do this.
No, the search won't "be on." They already have their answer, and it's right in the name of the freaking theory -- it was an Intelligence that did the Designing. No "mechanism," no investigation into what created the Intelligence or what it is. That's the answer they've presupposed and that's the only place that ID theory is willing to go.
Investigating whether information theory is compatible with the current state of evolutionary theory is a valid one, but the IDers aren't doing that. They're just trying to find some magical weak point that will cause all of evolution and secular science to fall apart and stop bothering them.
I'd be willing to bet that they're are some real scientists looking into the information theory aspect of genetic evolution right now -- and they probably think that ID is hogwash, as well.
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
This argument has been debunked so many time it ain't funny.
First if you think we find many fossile , think again : There was billion and billion of creature dying over the course of million of year. But fossilisation is a so lucky process that we do not find even 0.0000001% of the specimen which dyed during that time period. So what the hell make you think we would find every specy neatly fossilised ? Why some specy due to their living environnement would not simply never be found ?
Second each time a "gap" between fossile 1 and 2 with fossile 1.5 is filled, the creationist* just say "but what is the gap between fossile 1 and 1.5 , and between 1.5 and 2 ? Creationist will NEVER be statisfied as the only satisfying things would be a CONTINUOUS record of specy but this won't happen due to argument 1 (rate of fossilisation).
Finally there is ALREADY many example of transitional form : lizard->byrd, fish->lizard, lizard->whale , preman->man, prehorse->horse and many other Iforgot, those have fossile a plenty, have been studied, and accepted as transitional form. Sigh.
(*) yeah I call ID'er creationism, to see why see argument about recursive designer in wiki
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I assume you got that quote from a creationist website rather than from Darwin himself, because if you got it from Darwin you would have known the context - Chapter 6 in Origin of the Species is "Difficulties on Theory" and is dedicated to addressing any preliminary difficulties the reader may have thought up while reading chapers 1 to 5.
It starts out
"Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader"
At which point he lists difficulties the reader may have thought of - one being that bit you quoted out of context, and he then proceeds to directly address those perceived difficulties.
Transitional forms are everywhere, not only in the fossile record, but in your backyard garden.
From chapter 2
"That varieties of this doubtful nature are far from uncommon cannot be disputed. Compare the several floras of Great Britain, of France, or of the United States, drawn up by different botanists, and see what a surprising number of forms have been ranked by one botanist as good species, and by another as mere variety"
Basically, because of all the transitional forms out there, there is no objective way to determine what is a species and what is a variety (for example that stuff you were taught in high school about viable offspring isn't always applicable, and even when it is applicable it doesn't always work). Of course, if life were a continual flow of often divergent change as suggested by evolution, it suddenly makes sense that attempts to box it up into artificial pigeonholes labelled "species" just don't work.
But back to bones:
The missing link is a popular and not a scientific concept
The number of transitional forms dug out of the ground is pretty much as expected, there's nothing suspicious about it.
But lets say you have two fossils, lets call them Betty-sue and Jim-bob, and you claim the skeletal evidence suggests Betty-sue decended from Jim-bob, but critics claim you have a missing link. So you go out and find the missing link, lets call it Mary-kate, now you're in a pickle because now your critics claim you have 2 missing links - one between Betty-sue and Mary-kate, and one between Mary-kate and Jim-bob. It's a trick you can't beat no matter how many intermediate forms you find.
Your differentiation between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" is artificial, and to admit it is basically to surrender the argument in favor of intelligent design peremptorily. What you are calling 'macro-evolution' can easily be described as the sum of many 'micro-evolution' events, taken over time; there is nothing to suggest that they are in any ways different processes.
However, this argument is a red herring to begin with, because whether evolution or Intelligent Design is falsifiable isn't the issue: the problem is that Intelligent Design doesn't offer an explanation for the origin of life. All it does is provide an explanation for human (and other Earthly) life, by attributing its origins, or at least evolutionary progress, to some outside agent. By not explaining the origin of this outside agent as well, it presents a chicken-and-egg problem. If some sort of 'intelligence' was required in order to 'design' the mammalian eye, than certainly this superior intelligence could not have arisen through evolution, as it must certainly be more complex even than we are; therefore it must have been designed by a yet superior intelligence, and so on and so forth.
This circularity problem is only solved -- rather conveniently in my mind, given the proponents of Intelligent Design: mostly Christians -- by a "god hypothesis," the invocation of some sort of ultimate, superior being for which there is no other evidence besides I.D. theory itself. Of course the I.D. theory which is currently being pushed stops just short of this declaration, but it is rather self-evident to any bright student, once you start going down the creationist path.
Intelligent Design isn't a bad theory because of falsifibility, it's a bad theory because it involves the creation of an outside agent to explain processes for which there are simpler, non-externally-dependent explanations, and then does nothing to explain the outside agent which it invokes. In general, where other theories have an internally and logically consistent process, Intelligent Design simply draws a question mark, shrugs, and with a wink and a nudge, points to the Bible.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The discussion about wheather ID is or not scientific has been done a lot of times and it is clear that it is NOT at all and it is NOT provable NOR testable...
Would there be any value in trying to find out why the heck people believe it? I my opinion it simply ignorance.
Most of the people that believe in ID surely think that dinosaurs existed 4000 years ago (yeah right, and there's even a book on that somewhere...). On the other hand they take The Genesis as a historical fact book whereas it was really the last book written by the hebrews aroung 500 B.C. as a compendium of stories made to teach people what God's intent was, and all of its content has been traced back, from Noha's ark (actually a mesopotamian merchant with a big floating house who drifted to the sea for 7 days), to Abraham.
These people are simply ignorant. That is the real and only fact, and like they say, "God made them, and they gather", only an ignorant can follow another ignorant.
Wake up!
UgaBuga!
Whilst you are correct about the case that God could very well have used evolution its irrelevant to the whole ID thing.... First of all... most fundamentalist Churches believe that GOD LITERALLY WROTE the BIBLE. Now there are many debates on what that actually means and the mechanisms involved but for most fundamentalists it means that every word in the Bible is there because God wanted it there. Every word is literally the word of God. People who believe this need the bible to be literally true so if the bible says creation took 7 days - its gotta be 7 days. So the christians in this vein will fight to any change to their interpretation of the Bible. Of course its happened before and will happen again that Biblical interpretation changes (flat earth, sun orbiting the earth, god wants slavery, homosexuality a choice and ID) The less findamental christians are not so threatened. If they see the bible as having historical context - they are much more willing to accept the bible might use metaphors or apochryphal imagery that should not be taken literally. These people are not threatened by truth or science. These are NOT the people behind ID. The science side is simple. Its either science or its not. ID is not science and should not be taught as such. It maybe that God directed evolution. ID may even be true... Science doesnt contend that ID is NOT true. It merely says that it can never be proven and there is NO evidence to show that its true and as such is Faith based and should be taught as faith and not as science. For an atheist Faith based means superstition and they rank that with the cargo cults and so forth. Would you want me to teach ur Kids IN SICIENCE that they need to throw salt over their shoulders when they spill salt to ward of bad luck when you spill salt ? Its exactly the same thing. So - there two sides are VERY different ... one says only science should be taught in science classes... and they other says OUR interpretation of Christianity (which is not universal even in the USA let alone the first world or worldwide) should be taught in science classes.
The USAs approach to religion has - ironically - caused a move away from religion in almost ALL other first world countries...its CLEARLY documented that the merger of religion and politics is causing social problems which no one else wants> Also the USA is slipping in science achivenment compared to other countries....
This is how important these issues are...
Well, one reason Christians as a whole are accumulating some blame might be that there are so many One True Christian Religions. To those of us who don't believe in the supernatural in the first place, keeping them all sorted is a lot of overhead. We're supposed to somehow know that Church Foo believes in evolution, while Church Bar believes in creationism, and remain current about the various splinter groups, arguments about the meanings of passages in the Bible, etc. I'd venture to guess that the number of Christians who are familiar with all the various Budhist sects isn't large. Some will be deeply knowledgable, out of intellectual curiosity, but there's simply no real driver for it. The ID in schools issue might then be seen as yet more generic supernaturalist weirdness, and people might then react against the entire indecipherable mess. There's probably no avoiding getting caught by some of the backlash.
What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
A great post.
Why must religion remain in the same state it was 2000 years ago, and not advance with the rest of society?
I can fill that. There's absolutely no point to advance the religion. There is nothing wrong with Christianity, or Buddhism, or Daoism, or [world religion of your choice], except that they have never been tried.
According to the book of Genesis, when good created the world it was good. Before the first sin there was no death and therefore could not have been evolution before Adam and Eve. That is why you can't believe Genesis to be the word of God and believe in evolution at the same time.
Well, since you apparently know quite a bit on the subject, or would like to think you do, maybe next time you'll actually bother to offer up some of your evidence, instead of calling those who disagree with you "weak minded".
Now, as much as I dislike feeding trolls, your error is common enough that it demands being addressed.
The presence of "evidence" for something does not, by any means, make it scientific. Also, you are confusing "evidence" with "empirical evidence", and that is not a semantic quibble, there is a world of difference between the two. Empirical evidence means observational evidence from the real world. That can be sometimes esoteric, as in quantum theory, but even quantum theory makes testable and falsifiable predictions.
If the intelligent design folks want to disprove evolution, it already can be done, and they don't even need to advance a competing theory. Evolution makes several falsifiable predictions, such as speciation, natural selection, and increased complexity of organisms as the fossil record timeline marches on. These have been borne out by observation. All you have to do to disprove evolution is to prove any one of those predictions false.
What does not disprove anything is "negative evidence"-that is, "No one can explain how such a complex structure appeared naturally, so it MUST have been a god or gods." The fact that something is currently unexplained does not mean that a "god" had a hand in it-500 years ago, all manner of phenomena, from supernova stars to lightning storms were attributed to God/gods. And yet, now that we have advanced, we can explain those as natural phenomena, and are quite aware of the mechanisms by which they work (stellar decay and static electricity, respectively). The fact that a theory does not yet explain everything does show a need for further study, but it does not in itself disprove the theory. Experimental falsification of that theory's predictions will do that, if they produce a result not explained or predicted by the theory. Can you please point me to that experiment? If it exists, the Nobel Prize committee has made a significant oversight.
Until then, try to refrain from calling your opposition "weak minded"-it is an indication of a weak mind to need to resort to such tactics.
As to intelligent design being scientific, please refer to the post you responded to. ID fails to complete several steps required by the scientific method, including the making of falsifiable predictions which can be tested through experimentation. That does not make it bad or its believers idiots, as they have every right to believe as they choose. It does, however, factually, make the theory unscientific. Until such time as it can be shown that Intelligent Design -has- been formulated according to the scientific method, it isn't science.
Oh, and I don't know what science class you attended, but any decent science teacher will make very clear to the students that it is, by definition, possible to prove any scientific theory false. That's part of the method-the theory must make falsifiable predictions. Many theories, such as phlogiston, were proven false after centuries of use, and sometimes they seemed to explain things very well. But to allow anyone to come along, insert "God" at whatever point they like, and call it science, is a disservice to the students and the scientific community in general.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Perhaps I should qualify my own remarks by saying that the Mormon achievement in Utah is remarkable. But, as someone who studied sociology of religion, I see Mormonism itself as a unifying system intended to give a sense of social coherence to people from disparate backgrounds. The parallels with the origins of Islam are striking, so much so that students of such things classify both Islam and Mormonism as schisms of Christianity, though I'm not competent to comment on that.
I won't be around in a thousand years time to see if Mormonism has resulted in the explosion of achievement in science, architecture and civilisation that followed the establishment of Islam, but I do think the recently reported fact that Mormons no longer constitute a majority in Salt Lake City is a dead giveaway.
And in answer to your last question - I am not an atheist. However, I do not believe in any kind of afterlife, and I can point to this position being supported at many points in the Bible. I won't bore you with my own theological beliefs, but whether or not you believe in a Creator God the idea that God would create the entire universe just as a kind of juvenile training system for a part of the human race to go on to another, invisible universe for which there is no objective evidence whatsoever - well, it's not worth spending time on. However, people who do believe it are extremely dangerous because they have no vested interest in preserving our planet. I would rather be governed by atheists who believe that this is what we have and therefore we need to look after it, than by people who think that if WW3 happens tomorrow, they will be sitting on a cloud playing a harp.
Pining for the fjords
And this is how the Incompetent Design nitwits are winning this argument. They've managed to convince the general public that (1) there are two major sides (in reality, there is one major side and one very small but incredibly vocal side) and (2) that the Evilutionists(tm) have closed minds. A scientist's mind should be open but not so open that their brain falls out. Allowing Intervention Divine into science class falls into the "brain falling out" category.
There is no debate here. There is a propaaganda war being waged against science by a bunch of ignorant Christian fundamentalists, who are essentially no better and no worse than the Islamic fundamentalists. They are winning the propaganda war because they have too much money, because of the $300 billion charity given annually in America, $280 billion goes to domestic Christian charities.
And I'm not picking on you. I see from the rest of your comment that you don't support Inconvenient Dribble in the science class. What I'm commenting on is that the propaganda war has been so successful that even you are saying that "both sides" have "closed minds". There are not two sides. The scientists do not have closed minds for rejecting debunked non-science. But even rational people are starting to repeat the mantra of "both sides" have "closed minds". What did that German dude say about "repeat a lie often enough"?
Not everyone who has problems with evolution is a young-earth creationist and ID is not creationism.
ID was invented by creationists for creationists. It is creationism dressed up in fancy words. The same logical flaws in creationism apply to ID. There's really nothing new in ID other than a well-financed campaign to legitimize it in the eyes of the less educated.
If ID were not creationism then the proponents of ID would first and foremost try to become established in the scientific community. They would concentrate on developing and refining their theory. If they made enough progress then it would naturally make its way into the classroom.
Unfortunately for everyone, ID is creationism. Proponents of ID are simply trying to push it into the classroom as quickly as possible, with as little scrutiny as possible. Why would any real scientist do this?
Religious fundamentlists of every flavour share a lot of common traits. Basically they have the same mindset (even if their methods may vary a bit) no matter what the name of their religion is.
They all want to force their absolute and eternal truth on other people, whatever it takes.
The fact that you think there is a great difference between christian and muslim fundies speaks volumes about you.
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
> As a Christian, I find the backlash against ID vaguely amusing.
As a Christian, I don't find the fact that other Christians continue to support creationism or "ID" at all amusing. It makes those who have not yet come to Christ think that all Christians are soft in the head, and obscures the intrinsic truth of Christianity.
> What needs to be understood is the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution.
The line between the two is an arbitrary one defined for human convenience.
> Nearly no reasonable person would claim that selective pressure over a long period of
> time can cause gradual changes to a species' DNA.
I think that the scientific community at large contains many reasonable people, so that seems to contradict what you said. Of course, science isn't politics and numbers alone don't make the truth. However, the scientific community comes to its conclusions based on solid evidence.
> This is called micro-evolution, and in fact the large majority of Christians have no
> problem with it.
You are contradicting what you just said, but anyway, "long periods of time" on an evolutionary scale are the time frames for macroevolution. Microevolution takes a shorter amount of time.
> Also, it's the only process Darwin demonstrated did actually occur. He then generalised
> this - changes between species - to species changing into completely different species, by
> assuming a very long period of time for micro-evolution to occur.
Biological species are defined arbitrarily as distinct groups of individuals which can interbreed. This is a single, quite arbitrary trait. However, you are right that it takes a long time for complete speciation to occur(far too long for experiments to be readily done) and so this cannot be easily tested in vivo.
> ID argues that this wouldn't be enough.
Unfortunately for that hypothesis, this is an additional complication which is not required to explain the evidence, and contradicts DNA evidence. The simpler hypothesis, applying evolution at all levels, performs just as well as the far more complex one.
> The Young Universe concept is completely separate from ID and the two shouldn't be confused.
> The only point of difference between evolutionists and ID (different from creationism) is
> macro-evolution. We actually don't have substantial evidence (fossil or otherwise) that
> mutation ever caused inter-species changes, just the assumption that it could occur, given
> that intra-species changes occur.
This is completely untrue in the post-genomic era. The genomes of numerous species have been sequenced, and the relationships between the sequences can be studied. There is a high degree of synteny(conservation of genes and gene order) between the human and the mouse genomes. Since "there is more than one way to do it"(sorry for stealing your slogan, Larry), i.e. multiple ways to code for the same function, if each species was created individually, we would expect that they would have no more than 5% similarity of protein sequences, and very little synteny.
> This is the 'flaw' in evolution that IDers seek to have pointed out - macro-evolution
> _isn't consistent with the scientific method_.
This is utterly untrue. See above. ID is not consistent with the scientific method.
> With all the public backlash and misrepresentation of what the ID movement really stands
> for, I thought it important to add a bit of reason into the mix, to give the majority of
> people speaking out against ID (who don't really understand what it stands for and just
> see it as a Bible-pushing fundamental Christian movement) some idea of what ID is really
> all about.
I would, however, agree with you that ID and creationism are not fundamentalist Christian concepts. Fundamentalism means interpreting the scriptures and ignoring the traditions.
However, the only reason that a subset of all Christians believe in creationism/ID is b
X-Has-Sig: yes
There is a ton of examples of speciation, and there are good explanations for numerous forms of this happening.
"Ring species" are the most glaring example: These happen where there's creatures that breed a bit left and right in a ring around an unsuitable habitat (often east-west around the entire world). At one end, there will be two "species" of birds (non-interbreeding populations), yet these are genetically connected through the ring. If the "middle" of the ring died (the other side of the earth), the genetic connection would disappear and they would be two species.
Ring species have often initially been classified as two species, BTW, as the populations were not interbreeding.
Examples: Salamanders, greenish warblers.
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
With evolution, biology makes no sense. Let's see you make the necessary amino acids, put them together in the necessary order to make DNA, create an environment that keeps them from degrading and then somehow they become more complex molecules.
If you have not noticed, entropy takes more complex items and turns them into simplier, lower energy state things. There are no local variations without someone doing work to reverse entropy, but in the end, entropy increases.
Science has yet to see a single-cell organism suddenly become a multicell organism and evolve. You can take a bacteria and turn it into many bacteria, but no one has taken bacteria and turned it into a form of life where both cells require each other support themselves.
My pamphlet, a PhD in Chemical Engineering.
Let's talk about your computer. Did it evolve by itself? Or did someone have to create it? DNA by it's nature requires the amino acid chains to be in a certain order. You can't simply put it together. The odds of evolving the right order are astronomical. In one book I have read written by 50 biologists, scientists, mathmaticians, it's improbable.
Get your Kicks on Route 66
I've always seen it as a story, much like a television series with a fictional family. We've got the man who was created first (because that's how society at the time worked - man = important), and a woman "created from his rib". The created from him thing is showing that the wife is a "part of" the husband; that she needs to be respected and cared for because she's basically "from the same mold". Then there's the devil masquerading as a snake, tempting the good folks to break the law. They're happy and carefree - efectively in Heaven (some theologists beleive that Eden wasn't actually on Earth, but rather a place between Heaven and Earth) - prior to breaking the law, and then after they break the law they know fear and shame, are kicked out of Eden and an angel with a flaming sword prevents return access until Jesus is born etc. So, episode two's moral is "obey the law, or you'll be punished". It's also a convenient way to introduce the concept that people are inherently bad until they've received permission from the giver of religion to be accepted into heaven, but we'll let that slide for now. After they're expelled, the series continues with the birth of Cain, Abel, and Seth - along with several other more minor characters, including the two daughters who Cain and Abel marry. These provide a background for other stories about being willing to sacrifice everything for God, not being jealous, leaving for a better place without "looking back", etc.
Adam was supposed to have lived for 930 years or so, which in itself seems rather unexplainable withouth presuming that he's a metaphor for the "source" of human life in the middle east (which is often cited as the origin of humans who eventually migrated all over the place)...
"If God used an mechanism such as Evolution to create divergent species, then God is not necessary."
I hear this argument all the time and I have yet to hear it make logical sense.
P1. God used evolution to create divergent species.
C. God is not necessary.
Not only is the middle undistributed, it doesn't even exist?!
In any rational person's mind, there is much more to the question of the existence of God (e.g. the origin of ethics and morality, purposefulness in the universe, the nature of the soul) than supplying a mechanism for transforming biological mass from one form to the next.
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
the standard whale evolutionary path has been discredited, by evolutionists.
Really? Care to provide some references to that? Care to even describe how it was discredited? What exactly is the issue? Wikipedia isn't the best of sources, but it is usually up to date on the latest points, but they make no reference to criticism. There are plenty of other pages about whale origins, and their bibiolgraphies are reasonably up to date. Any searches on Google for "whale evolution discredited" or "cetacean evolution flawed" turns up nothing but creationist sites, and a wikipedia article about recapitulation theory (which is quite unrelated).
Just like the evolution of horses.
Couldn't find any details on that either - care to provide some decent references?
And how do you suppose the intermediate forms of things like dino/birds work? Things like the lungs are too different to have viable intermediaries.
And how, exactly, would you know a lot about the structures of the lungs of dinosaurs? Soft tissue doesn't get preserved. The best we've got is the strcuture of the rib cage and chest cavity which, even for dromaeosaurids was remarkably similar to birds? The best you could claim is that the lungs of modern reptiles and birds are too different - but then the general morphology of a crocodile and a chicken are very different yet we have many intermediate forms of various dinosaurs showing how that can work. It seems easy enough to believe that the lungs, and everything else, changed and adapted as well. What exactly is your firm foundation for believeing that dinosaurs didn't develop birdlike lungs?
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Typical unsourced creationist claims.
p art1a.htm if anyone wants the detail on this.
You say there is only one fossil linking fish and amphibians. Absolute poppycock. Over a dozen "transitional" *species* between fish and amphibians have been identified from many hundreds of fossils. There are many other well understood transitions. There is an excellent introduction of this at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/
Your argument is also self-refuting. You claim that if evolution were correct then the fossil record would be a continuum. But you presumably accept "microevolution" even though there is no continuum of "micro-evolved" fossils. The answer is of course that the chance of an organism being fossilised, and then surviving millions of years of erosion and geological activity is is pretty damn small.
And as for a scientific revolution coming, it's a funny kind of scientific revolution that's driven by religious fundamentalists?
Ah yes, a random site that simply makes the claim that the fossil is a forgery. It should be noted, of course, that there are in fact 7 different specimens of Archaeopteryx, discovered at various different times in various places and in various degrees of intactness. We aren't talking about a single forged specimen but instead about 7 different independent forgeries that all happen to coincide almost exactly. That's a remarkable conspiracy you're claiming, and you have, let's be frank, absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back that up - the best you seem to be able to point to is a creationist who says "well it looks suspicious to me".
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts