Darwin Evolving Into A Tricky Exhibit

rbochan writes "The new Darwin Exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History has 'failed to find a corporate sponsor in the United States because American companies are anxious not to take sides in the heated debate between scientists and fundamentalist Christians over the theory of evolution' according to articles at The Sydney Morning Herald, The Telegraph, and The Register. The $US3 million needed for the exhibit was met by private charitable donations."

Comments

Most disturbing.....

[BWJones]

Pathetic. I am much more willing to give my business to those companies that can take a stand. Furthermore, as a professor in the biosciences, I am especially troubled by stories like this. Perhaps even more disturbing is that this does not appear to be a news item covered in the mainstream US media. I had to learn about this first from Slashdot, the Sydney Morning Herald, The Telegraph and The Register, thanks to ~rbochan.

Arguably, much of our current understanding of biology and bioscience (development of drugs and antibiotics, medicine etc...etc...etc...) and many things that may surprise you are due to a fundamental understanding of biology. Try future developments in body armor, engineering, acoustics, propulsion and search algorithms on for size. All of those disparate fields have been influenced and guided by cross-polination from bioscience and ignoring or even worse, rejecting a scientific understanding of the world will only hold us back.

It is particularly ironic because one of the missions of the American Museum of Natural History is education of those very same individuals and corporations who are benefitting from decades of science education in the United States.

Religious extremism come in many flavors folks, and if we are not careful, we are going to lose our edge. Remember, this country is only a couple hundred years old. Those societies that have embraced education and science historically are those societies that survive.

Re:Most disturbing.....

[Qzukk]

In the end, I'd much rather that companies don't take a stand. Not about evolution, not about politics, not about anything else. The fewer companies that throw their weight around for whatever reason, good or bad, the more our country moves towards something representative of the desires of the human beings who live here.

I'm sure that many of the same CxOs who refused to risk their company's image put their own money in the pot. Now if only they'd do the same for everything else.

Re:Most disturbing.....

[suitepotato]

Religious extremism come in many flavors folks, and if we are not careful, we are going to lose our edge. Remember, this country is only a couple hundred years old. Those societies that have embraced education and science historically are those societies that survive.

Which would those be? I ask because I know of not one nation on Earth to be in continuous unbroken governance and structure since let's say the time of Troy. Nothing lasts forever, or even very long, where the species concerned has a deep-seated short attention span problem compared to their own history and more desire for individual thought than lockstep conformity at any cost which is more the sort of thing that would be required for them to have any given nation stay intact for three thousand years. That would be boring. Upheaval and change is in the nature of the people we're concerned with. So I wouldn't look towards survival of any given nation past a few hundred years as all that important.

Re:Most disturbing.....

[oliana]

No, if a company came forward and said, "We will not donate because we don't believe in evolution" that would be a stand.

Withholding funding because it might offend someone is the pansy-ass way to handle the situation.

Re:Most disturbing.....

[general_re]

Insofar as there are some who find the methodological materialism of science offensive, they are indeed opposed to the entirety of science, whether intentionally or not.

Re:Most disturbing.....

[Kohath]

I am much more willing to give my business to those companies that can take a stand.

Provided it's a stand you agree with. And you're not exactly in a huge majority. So don't hold your breath.

I am willing to give my business to those companies that provide me with items I want. Specifically, I buy stuff that's worth more to me than the money I offer in exchange. I'm rational.

Re:Most disturbing.....

[Prospero's Grue]

AFAIK the christian fundamentalists are not challenging scientific understanding as a whole. They challenging the way we think the universe got from zero to this point.

To challenge the conclusion, and offer an alternative based on available evidence, would be a good manner in challenging the way we think the universe got from zero to this point.

To reject the conclusion, evidence, and process, and instead substitute in metaphors and logical fallacies and then attempt to argue (with a straight face) that this, too, constitutes an alternative worth consideration is a challenge to scientific understanding, and the scientific method.

Don't get me wrong - they can believe what they like; but it's nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig, and I say call it what it is.

Re:Most disturbing.....

[SilverspurG]

I read all three articles and not a single one can honestly say that it was because of debate between scientists and fundamentalist Christians. First, it really isn't much of a debate. The only people debating it are people who've got their fingers lodged firmly in their ears. Second, the articles only acknowledge that corporate sponsors declined to participate this year. It's much more likely there was a change in a tax loophole which prompted the shift than there was any worry about fundamentalist Christians boycotting the museum's sponsors.

For Pete's sake... does anybody question anything anymore?

Re:Most disturbing.....

[lahvak]

No, they are challenging the whole scientific method, by basically saying that all theories are equivalent, and by rejecting generally accepted and completely satisfactory theory on religious bases. They are in the same group as those who rejected relativity because it was a "Jewish science", in the same group as Lysenko ond other communist "scientists" who tried to twist scientific theories to make them fit their political beliefs.

Re:Most disturbing.....

[jedidiah]

No, it wasn't science. It was literacy and tolerance. These are precisely the sort of values that allow things such as science to flourish. These are also the sort of values that would prevent even the most religiously zealous members of some 4000 year old culture from interfering with a science curriculum.

One must bear in mind that the Vatican doesn't even think that "Intellegent Design" has any place in a science classroom.

No, shenanigans of this sort are being driven by the protestant equivalent of the Taliban.

Re:Most disturbing.....

[karzan]

Name any society that has survived more than 4000 years ever.

I assume what you mean by 'society' is not an ethnic group but a kind of recognisable contiguous social formation. Even this is hard to define--for example, did British society as we know it today begin in the dark ages, did it begin 1000 years ago or is it really so fundamentally different now to what it was then that we can't call it the same society?

But even if we forget this difficulty and just go by conventional definitions, for things like the Roman Empire or ancient Egypt, I think you would be hard pressed to find any society that has ever lasted more than 4000 years. For example, ancient Egypt as we think of it, i.e. as a unified state/civilisation, lasted from approximately 3200 BC to 332 BC, i.e. less than 3000 years. And despite the old European myth of an 'ancient Africa', most of the sub-Saharan African societies that existed at the time of colonisation were largely the result of migration of Bantu peoples starting in approximately the 2nd millennium BC making these societies at the very most 4000 years old, but in reality because of the lack of written history we have know way of knowing if there was much historical continuity in them at all, as opposed to changing through many phases.

The idea of civilisations that exist in recognisable form for very long periods of time is a myth. Human society is inherently unstable. Tribal groups as much as other kinds of society often destroy each other, or destroy the environment on which they depend through overexploitation. As far as anyone knows, there has just never really been a time when there have been societies that have lasted much more than 4000 years, and even the 3000 years of the Egyptian state is based on a very loose definition of a society when you consider the changes that occurred in Egyptian history.

Don't mean to nitpick, but if you are trying to claim that religion holds societies together for many thousands of years, I don't think the case can be argued on that basis.

Re:Most disturbing.....

[Randall_Jones]

"But can bioscience take away my sin?"

Yes, but can religion whiten my teeth and freshen my breath?

Lets leave the religion to the religious people and the science to the scientists. Accepting evolution doesn't require a person to have absolute and exclusive faith in science to answer all life's questions. It's reasonable for religion to play a role in ethical issues, but I'd rather have scientists creating things like bodyarmor, pharmaceuticals, etc.

Re:Most disturbing.....

[jedidiah]

The Pope isn't atheist. The Pope doesn't agree with these creationist shenanigans.

All you're trying to do is use weak character assasination to smear anyone that doesn't agree without.

The professor is right. The American Taliban are not so numerous but they are quite loud.

Re:Most disturbing.....

[timeOday]

Do we even know whether or not this was about taking a stand on Darwin in the first place? I only read the first article, but I saw exactly 0 companies quoted as witholding support to avoid controversy. It's a very slippery business trying to ascribe one particular cause to the lack of support for a fundraiser. "I'm persecuted" sounds a lot better than "nobody's interested." I've never been to any natural history museum that even hinted at anything other than Darwinism, so I don't see why it would be so controversial now.

Re:Most disturbing.....

[PureCreditor]

> Name any society that has survived more than 4000 years ever.

May I point that the Chinese society began in B.C. times. While Babylon evaporated, Greece subsided, Egypt mummified, and Roman collapsed, the Chinese culture survived, and still running strong today.

Sure, the political ideology has changed along the way, from citystate-hood (pre BC times) to imperialism to democracy (very short period of time pre-WW2) to communism, yet the Chinese culture continues to evolve and flourish.

Re:Most disturbing.....

[dreamt]

I'm sorry, but I have to call BS here. This is the same crap that got us here in the first place. Being moral/ethical has nothing to do with being religious. There are plenty of people who are "moral" that are not religious, and certainly enough people who are religious who are not moral.

After all, lets look at the Muslim extremist. They justify terrorism by stating that they are following their religious teaching. According to your arguement, they are benefiting for moral codes?

Lets look at Pat Robbertson. He prayed for people do die? Is that moral?

Lets look at Rush Limbaugh. He's a druggie, even worse, a hypocritical druggie.

Lets look at Tom DeLay. He's been admonished by the ethics committee how many times?

Lets look at Cheney. He's for torture!!! Is that moral?

Re:Most disturbing.....

[karzan]

China is commonly estimated to have been unified around 2000 years ago, with records existing of (possibly concurrent) kingdoms in China going back to possibly 2000 BC.

Before and maybe during this time, there existed city states and small settlements, which given the size of the landmass were likely to be linguistically, culturally and ethnically diverse.

If you call that kind of entity a society contiguous with unified China, then you might as well call pre-historic Europe a society contiguous with the Roman Empire. However I think it makes more sense to make the distinction, and say that what we think of as Chinese civilisation today dates back either 2000 or at most 3500-4000 years.

Re:Most disturbing.....

[Total_Wimp]

In the end, I'd much rather that companies don't take a stand. Not about evolution, not about politics, not about anything else.

Thank goodness Intel took a stand on the theory of ultraviolet lithography. Thank goodness Boeing took a stand on the theory of aerodynamic lift. Thank goodness Dole took a stand on the theory that biological contamination can cause disease (did you know you can't even see bacteria?). Thank goodness all the corporations that develop AIDS medicine have taken a stand on biological evolution because otherwise they wouldn't have a chance at understanding the disease they're trying to fight.

Yes, I'm glad that corporations DO take stands. This is not an iffy subject. Not taking as stand on evolution is like not taking a stand on the existence of electricity.

TW

Re:Most disturbing.....

[san]

> Hm, so are you of the opinion that religion can have no benefit at all,

No, of course not; one thing I like about religion (even though I'm not religious) is that it can force you to think about the big questions.

> ... and that there is a natural moral code completely independant of any religious beliefs?

yes of course; you seem to have missed about two centuries of philosophical debate: start with Kant and keep on reading. You've missed quite a bit, apparently.

Re:Most disturbing.....

[saikatguha266]

> Name any society that has survived more than 4000 years ever.

Hinduism. 4000-5000 years and counting.

http://165.29.91.7/classes/humanities/worldstud/97 -98/religion/hinduism/origins.htm

Re:Most disturbing.....

[daveb]

a winner? You can't be serious! The Jewish culture and nationality bares very little resemblance to anything 500 years ago, hardly anything to 2000 years ago and resembles the culture 4000 years ago to the same degree that it resembles Polynesian culture today.

Re:Most disturbing.....

[Hrothgar The Great]

I disagree. As you said, the minority is extremely vocal - still, the only reason they are persuasive enough to affect any sort of political change is because people are generally supportive of what they have to say.

Most people don't really understand science because they have never studied it, but they do understand the faith they were raised with to some degree, and if they have to make a choice between two things, neither of which makes a huge amount of sense to them anyway, they are going to choose whichever falls more closely in line with what they already understand. Do you have a lot of Christian friends? You should ask them. I guarantee you mine are generally more readily accepting of ID.

Your "vocal minority" also comprises almost any position in every Protestant church in the US, who actually speak every Sunday to a majority of Americans.

Re:Most disturbing.....

[Total_Wimp]

I'm going to assume that you're simply ignorant as to the wide-held understanding of the scientific theory of evolution. Simply put, it's about as solidly understood as the shape of the Earth. There is no such thing as a mainstream biological scientist either unsure or, or actually studying an alternate theory to, the theory of evolution. These scientists are not "militant athiests" (whatever that is), and characterizing them as such signals very clearly that you've never really looked into the matter in a serious way. I suggest you take the time to look into it now. It'll be an eye-opener for you.

TW

Re:Most disturbing.....

[TangoCharlie]

I'm going to assume that you're simply ignorant as to the wide-held understanding of the scientific theory of evolution. Simply put, it's about as solidly understood as the shape of the Earth.

I resent the assumption here that the shape of the earth is not currently disputed. There still exist today "militant athiests" who believe that the would is a sphere whereas it clearly states in the Bible that the world is flat. Pleople who persist in spreading these vicious "round earth" LIES should be named and shamed. They should not every be allowed to teach children, run companies or Heaven Forbid work in the Government.

You say it like it's a bad thing...

[XorNand]

The $US3 million needed for the exhibit was met by private charitable donations.

IMHO, the arts and sciences should be supported by private donations, not corporate sponsors. Professional sports have been utterly ruined by sponsorship. I'd hate to see the arts go down the same drain, esp. in situations like this. Can you imagine Dali being turned down by a gallery who said his work might not fit the status quo as dictated by Standard Oil? (yes I know he was Spanish) Sometimes good art and good science fly in the face of public opinion. Institutions who increasingly seek more and more of their budget from corporations are doing an extreme disservice to themselves and to the public.

Re:You say it like it's a bad thing...

[JavaSavant]

Eh, corporate sponsorship IS a private donation. Usually, corporate sponsors will simply ask for their brand to be displayed prominently in advertising for the given attraction.

I think what you're searching for here is "anonymous donors," which is silly. Hell, even here in Boston we have the Hayden Planetarium and the Mugar Omni Theatre - fantastic features of the Boston Museum of Science that were built and are supported by the foundations which they are named after. The only reason these philanthropists can do what they do is because the causes they support feature their names prominently, and the notariety filters back to them in the form of support, assistance, and respect by the public. ,p> The money has to come from somewhere, and outside of an independently wealthy individual who seeks nothing but the ability to see these kinds of spectacles on display to the public, something needs to be provided in exchange for or in appreciation of the funding received typically. You'll have a hard time finding people, no matter how generous they may be, who are willing to displace a large chunk of their finances for no recognition. They sponsor these events for the same reason companies do.

Re:You say it like it's a bad thing...

[J'raxis]

I don't think he's talking about ordinary individuals using a large chunk of their finances, but something along the lines of a fundraiser: many people donating, say, $5-100 -- a few generous people donating more, but most donating rather small amounts that simply add up. If pledge drives work for PBS, why can't something similar work here?

Re:You say it like it's a bad thing...

[Slashdiddly]

Have you been to Science and Industry Museum in Chicago? The main floor is so commercial, I can't call it a museum anymore.

The Farm exhibit might as well be called John Deere.
Or the Petroleum Planet. It has a kid-targeted exhibit/game called "41 Days to Glory". Instructions (literal quote):
  "Transport crude oil from Saudi Arabia to the Chicago area in time for the big NASCAR race."

Another quote:

"Our national reserve currently has approximately 150 billion barrels of crude oil - enough for another 70 years".

Umm, yay? Or the Enterprise Exhibit. It features a climbing wall/"adventure game" for small kids (pic). Quote on the wall:

  "Our competitor is suing us over our juggling reindeer campaign. Should we: a) settle the lawsuit? b) go to court?"

So, yes, based on this I'd say we should keep corporate money out of museums.

Well...

[Pantero Blanco]

I guess some zealots just won't trust anything that comes from Apple. Sad, really. :)

Seriously, I don't know many Christians, even young-earth creationists, who'd actively go after companies that promoted this exhibit. Jerry Falwell's group might bitch a bit, but they do that anyway.

Re:Well...

[evil agent]

I guess some zealots just won't trust anything that comes from Apple.

Well sure. Ever since Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, they've been suspicious of all fruits.

Re:Well...

[Mahou]

since when do humans have genetic memories? one case of a fruit(not an apple btw) would not install a fear of that fruit in all the descendants. but anyway, adam is merely the first human man--'adam' means 'man' and for the first part of genesis it wasn't even used as his name just a noun. to claim adam(the first man) never existed is to say man was spontaneously created with a population containing multiple men and therefore you believe in something stranger than strict creationism, weirdo.

The Dumbing-Down Of America, part XXVII

[TripMaster Monkey]

From the Register article:

Growing numbers of Americans support the idea of teaching creationism in schools, and in a recent CBS News poll, 51 per cent of respondents said they rejected the idea of evolution

Absolutely shameful. I'm almost ashamed to be a Christian...and I'm definitely ashamed of being an American. Exactly when was it that my country decide to abdicate rationality in favor of wanton superstition, reprehensible pseudoscience, and gross ignorance? Or was America ever rational to begin with?

I may sound rather strident on this issue, but as you'll understand, this hits rather close to home. You see, in my church there is a Sunday school class where ID is being taught as a viable alternative to evolutionary theory. Every time I hear the teacher talking about such intellectually bankrupt concepts as 'irreducible complexity' I want to scream, but I'm not sure how to approach this without alienating the rest of the church. Suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Re:The Dumbing-Down Of America, part XXVII

[slavemowgli]

Maybe ask them why they're opposed to evolution when even the pope (both the current one and the last one) accepts it.

Re:The Dumbing-Down Of America, part XXVII

[Pantero Blanco]

I don't find someone believing in young-earth Creationism, or even teaching it to their kids, to be offensive. As long as they don't try to smother any other opinions. Atheists are often guilty of the latter as well, I've noticed.

I had a similar situation at my church, and I pretty much just stated what I believe in a non-offensive manner, and no one freaked out or anything. One or two people argued with me a bit, but nothing big. Unless you go to a VERY conservative church, you shouldn't have any problems...The fundamental part of Christianity is belief in God and Jesus and love for your fellow man, not how many days it took to create the world and mankind.

Re:The Dumbing-Down Of America, part XXVII

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Polls get overstated all the time- and this CBS poll was most certainly distorted in both results and leading questions. Another possible interpretation of the *same poll* could lead you to believe 75% of Americans support evolution and 51% dispute the idea of spontaneous genesis.

Re:The Dumbing-Down Of America, part XXVII

[general_re]

Carries no weight with them, insofar as the vast majority of people likely to raise a stink about this kind of thing are evangelicals and not Catholics - in fact, there's a certain amount of overlap between anti-evolution folks and anti-Catholic folks. For them, the fact that the Church does not require a literal reading of Genesis of Catholics is just one more piece of evidence that the RC Church is the Whore of Babylon. All kinds of worms under that particular rock...

Re:The Dumbing-Down Of America, part XXVII

[Prospero's Grue]

Every time I hear the teacher talking about such intellectually bankrupt concepts as 'irreducible complexity' I want to scream, but I'm not sure how to approach this without alienating the rest of the church. Suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

"A prayer in a public school. God has no place within these walls, just like facts don't have a place within an organized religion." -From The Simpsons

So, that's a glib answer, but when it comes right down to it, I'm hard pressed to agree they're doing anything wrong.

Personally, I'm an atheist, and a believer in the scientific process. ID, in my view, is a load of claptrap. And while I might join you in rolling my eyes as a Sunday school goes on about such unscientific nonsense as "irreducible complexity", you must understand I have a similar reaction when someone goes on about a virgin birth - and I suspect you would not share my contempt, then.

If people want to argue vociferously that faith-based concepts like ID should not be taught in science class (and I agree they should not), then it's hard to get too worked up when they teach them in church. I won't condemn a church for teaching ID within their walls, any more than I would condemn them for the host of other un-scientific explanations and teachings they offer.

Re:The Dumbing-Down Of America, part XXVII

[Gr8Apes]

Exactly why are people opposed to religion nutty? Is there a rational reason to be irrational? The core tenet of most religions is "faith", which by definition has no rational support, or it wouldn't be faith, would it? Note that this doesn't excuse the radical atheists, who are almost as full of fundamentalist zealotry as their religious counterparts, although in general I note that atheists aren't as hypocritical.

Let's pretend people are lemmings, and, you happen to be a "rational" lemming and stand outside the stampede to the cliff. Is it "nutty" to try to change the viewpoint of some of the horde stampeding to the cliff? (ignoring the fact that the horde would probably try to stampede you for getting in their way/viewpoint)

As for the bible-thumpers taking over America, start with Bush, and end with the extremely discouraging discriminating TX "marriage" law. Yes, there's a good reason to be alarmist.

Re:The Dumbing-Down Of America, part XXVII

[general_re]

If you don't think that what is in the Bible is literal, you CAN'T be a Christian.

So when Christ said "I am the door" (John 10:9), do you suppose he had hinges and a doorknob?

Re:The Dumbing-Down Of America, part XXVII

[MightyMartian]

Perhaps you ought to consider that for much of Christianity's history, and indeed Judaism's history, literal reading of every verse was not considered necessary, but actually was considered ludicrous. Augustine cautioned against readings of Scripture that ran counter to reason. Biblical literalism is, in fact, a young movement even within Protestant circles.

The best example is the shape of the Earth. To the ancient Hebrew tribes, their cosmology being based on Mesopotomian notions, the Earth was a flat disc covered by a crystal dome. This is seen plainly in the cosmology put forth in Genesis 1. However, by Greco-Roman times, the spherical shape of the Earth was well known, and no Jew of that period would have doubted that. Thus the older Hebrew cosmology could not be seen as literally true, so Genesis was not read literally.

It is very unfortunate that a certain small breed of Christian has decided to rewrite two thousand years of theology and in the process turn their holy book into an object of derision. A literal reading of Genesis makes it clearly false, and to make it jive, the Literalist ends up having to find interpretations so strained and inane that it undermines their whole position.

Re:The Dumbing-Down Of America, part XXVII

[CosmeticLobotamy]

What do we really expect when people are fed a steady diet of superstition on TV? What are some of the most popular youth TV shows - Buffy, Charmed, Supernatural, etc.

You're blaming a belief in the supernatural to Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Are you insane? Have you ever watched any of those shows? You think for a second that some teenager sees Sarah Michelle Gellar kicking a vampire or Alissa Milano disappearing in a bad special effect and decides, "Hey, you know what? Maybe there IS a god." Supernatural has about as much effect on people's attitudes toward the afterlife as Nightmare on Elm Street did.

The ghost documentaries probably do some harm, I'll grant you that, because they pretend to give actual evidence, and I really wish they'd stop.

Re:The Dumbing-Down Of America, part XXVII

[general_re]

I think everyone is paying too much attention to some small amount of people who actually are the "dumb science-hating" fundamentalists the /. crowd characterize as mainstream right-wing christian americans.

Welcome to hardball politics, where your opponents latch on to extremist nutjobs in order to tar you as a nutjob yourself. And it will continue to be so as long as conservatives fail to make the case that anti-science kookery is not a necessary part of conservatism. And I say that as a conservative, my friend.

Re:The Dumbing-Down Of America, part XXVII

[renderhead]

As a Christian, perhaps correcting your fellow believers about evolutionary biology shouldn't be your highest priority. There are reasons to divide a church, but the presence of differing opinions about science education is not one of them. Ask yourself the following questions:

1. Do the people in this church love God? Do they believe in their salvation through the death of Jesus Christ? Do they practice the teachings of Christ by loving one another and serving those less fortunate than themselves?
2. If not, these are issues that need to be addressed before you even start thinking about debating evolution with them. Without the above principles, your church is not a Christian church, and you've got problems.
3. If yes, will debating evolutionary biology with the people of your church help them to become better disciples of Jesus Christ? Will challenging the notion of "irreducible complexity" further the mission of the church on earth?

These are questions you must answer for yourself about your own church. Your priorities must be your own, but I know that were I in your place, I would not let a question that I consider tangential to the teachings of Jesus Christ introduce strife between believers.

Re:The Dumbing-Down Of America, part XXVII

[rbochan]

The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round,
for I have seen the shadow on the moon,
and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.
        -- Ferdinand Magellan (1480-1521)

Re:The Dumbing-Down Of America, part XXVII

[VP]

I have a similar reaction when someone goes on about a virgin birth

Virgin birth, or immaculate conception? The former is at least plausible technically if you take into account heavy petting and mutual masturbation...

Re:The Dumbing-Down Of America, part XXVII

[Maxo-Texas]

Very clever.

What amazes me is how people die and kill over something that has as much validity as the AD&D Gods, Dieties & Demigods handbook.

Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.

Re:The Dumbing-Down Of America, part XXVII

[flyinwhitey]

"will want them to start their school days in a religious ceremony of devotion to a starred and striped rag."

Listen, I can tell what you really are, so I'm prepared for it, but why would you refer to the flag that way?

Is it really so hard to refrain from insulting something which can't fight back, and is genrerally regarded as representing the sacrifices of people who died protecting the ideals of freedom?

So you hate the US, fine, you're allowed to misrepresent reality.

But what does insulting the symbol of the US do to help you? Do you think you're getting anywhere doing something which has no purpose other than to incite?

Debate?

[taskforce]

Sorry, there's an actual debate going on?

As in those presenting the current crop of alternate theories have a leg to stand on? This is really news to me.

Here's the ticket

[Chickenofbristol55]

'failed to find a corporate sponsor in the United States because American companies are anxious not to take sides in the heated debate between scientists and fundamentalist Christians over the theory of evolution'

I think Darwin's theory needs to evolve to survive in its ever changing environment.

Jesus Christ!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is God damn rediclious!

Why not big pharma?

[Biff Stu]

They need a trained workforce that understands biology and chemistry. If the religious wack jobs can't handle it, let them boycott the latest antibiotics. After all, bacteria don't evolve, right?

Re:Why not big pharma?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

show me a bacteria that has become a fish

Go fishing.

Catch a fish.

There you go.

(Okay, that was a flip answer. Here's a serious one.)

The timescale for major evolutionary change in multicellular life is so enormous that we're not going to see bacteria evolving into fish. However, I've noticed that when creationists use this argument, which turns up in many different forms, they have no idea how diverse microbial life actually is. When you say "they evolve, but they remain a bacteria," I think you have no idea just how different from each other various forms of bacteria actually are. There's more difference, in fact, between various strains of bacteria that we have observed evolving into each other than there is between a fish and a human being.

Re:Why not big pharma?

[thebdj]

Ok let us start with an easy enough reference point, in this case dinosaurs. Here we have a set of creatures we know existed millions of years ago and which is now believed to be the progenitors to the reptiles and birds. We know there were dinosaurs with some ability of flight and some land and some water based dinosaurs. Why did they choose these different habitats and travel methods? Location! Environment has a great deal to do with the evolution of a species.

You have to remember there are plenty of evolutionary paths for any organism to follow. Humans arguably have evolved somewhat separately while still maintaining compatible DNA. Let us take a look at the case of skin pigmentation. People in the northern most extremes of the world like Scandinavia and Russia developed light skin pigmentations because our bodies did not require as much protection from sun light in these areas. The days were shorter and sunlight exposure as such was also shorter, because of locality. Look at people as you move further south, skin tones begin to get darker the longer your days and more direct your sunlight begins to get. You have people in the Mediterranean and Middle East with darker, "olive" skin and as you move into Africa you begin to get individuals with even darker skin.

The Evolution of man is actually well documented from early ape-like humans to modern man of today. Evolution is a long process and not something you can expect to see overnight. Animals and plants have adapted to their environments and find ways to survive, and the ones that survive go on to breed until the new traits have replaced the older ones completely, or a divergence occurs and a new species incompatible with the previous occurs.

Please check out this site and if you come up with a new argument that actually attempts to present fact then please feel free.

Re:Why not big pharma?

[Darius Jedburgh]

There is no point arguing in support of evolution if you haven't taken the time to even look at the claims of your opponents. IDists make a distinction between micro- and macroevolution and see the evolution of bacteria in response to antibodies, for example, as an example of microevolution at work. If you don't know this then you make yourself look as much of a fool as them. (Well, maybe not quite as much of a fool, but a bit of a fool anyway.)

Re:Why not big pharma?

[Alsee]

In this universe, we OBEY THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS especially the second one.

Oh my God! You're right! You just proved evolution is impossible! All of those highly educated professional scientists completly overlooked that!

Oh, and by the way you also just proved that it is impossible snowflakes to form. You know, those for complex highly structured snowflakes that spontaneously form out of chaotic water vapor in the air.

It's unbelievable how scientifically illiterate and ignorant people somehow think they are qwualified to critique the ENTIRE educated professional scientific community that has studied these things and all of the evidence. The attacks on evolution are just as commical as if these people were critiquing nuclear fusion and the explanation of how the sun shines.

By claiming that the second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution all you have done is proove that you are completely uninformed and unqualified to to competently discuss the subject.

I'm sorry for being so harsh, but after the umpteen-hundreth time of people demonstrating their ignorance and making the same flagrantly INVALID arguments it tends to get a bit tedious and one tends to lose patients. You want to see a bacteria evolve into a fish? And what, I sask you, would you say to someone attacking relativity and demanding "show me my watch slow down when I drive fast in a car". What would you say to someone who argued that conservation of mass proves relativity is wrong because things can't get heavier when they move fast?

There is a REASON ththat 99.9+% of educated professional biologists accept evolution. A REASON that there is absolutely zero scientific controversy over the fundamentals of evolution. These educated professionals understand how it works and they have studied the staggering quantities of conclusive evidence.

You don't need to be a professional and have a biology degree to understand what evolution actually says and how it actually works and to independantly review the staggering quantities of conclusive evidence supporting evolution, but you do need the proper extensive education to be able to competently argue these scientists are wrong on anything in particular... much less to make the rather bold claim that THE ENTIRE EDUCATED PROFESSIONAL SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY is completely wrong about everything.

What would you say to someone with no physics degree who attempted to claim that quantum mechanics was wrong? Who attempted to claim that the entire scientific community was competely wrong about quantum mechanics.

I can only assume your highschool provided a dismal or nonexistant education in evolution and all of the evidence behind it. Hardly supprising, it seems many highschools are failing to provide a proper education i the area because of the public controversy and religious controversy over evolution (as I said there is zero scientific controversy over the fundamentals of evolution). Get a decent science textbook and discover for yourself why evolution is not a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, the same reason snowflakes are not a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

-

Re:Why not big pharma?

[Auckerman]

In this universe, we OBEY THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS especially the second one.

You are correct. 2nd Law of of Thermo says that in an isolated system, delta S increases. Note, it does not say that in all cases, delta S increases. Locally, delta S can decrease as long as for the whole system, it increases. It is this fundamental fact that allows things like air conditioners to exist, babies to grow into adults, and evolution to occur. All three of these examples rely on energy to enter the system and some of that engergy to be lost in the form of work. In the case of air conditioners that energy is electricity, in the case of babies growing up to being adults that energy was stored in food, in the case of evolution that energy comes directly from the sun.

Welcome to thermodynamics.

Here's a silly thought

[Marxist Hacker 42]

What about making a balanced exhibit that companies CAN support without losing business, and letting people viewing the exhibit come to their own conclusions? I personally would find a Scofield/Darwin/Coppe exhibit to be very enlightening- even if I think the evidence behind Darwin (Spontaneous Genesis) and Coppe (Intelligent Design) would knock Scofield (Young Earth Creationism) all hollow (but then again, that's how it should be isn't it, since this is in historical order of theories proposed?)

Re:Here's a silly thought

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Any "balanced" exhibit would come down firmly on the side of Darwin to the total exclusion of the others. Both ID and Young Earth creationism are so full of crap that there's no way to present them accurately and scientifically without alienating the creationist (including ID) crowd. Asking for a "balanced" Darwin exhibit that gives fair play to creationism is like asking for a "balanced" Hubble exhibit that gives fair play to astrology.

Re:Here's a silly thought

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I have read it- and I still insist that neither the evolutionists nor the IDers realize how close they are to each other. The one sticking point is randomness- and I come down firmly on the side of ID there.

But have you ever examined the idea of astrology seriously? There's 4000 years worth of empirical evidence for it.

Re:Here's a silly thought

[geomon]

>>Your point about Planck tiem is no germane to your proof.

So says YOU, but who are YOU to judge what is and is not germane to MY proof?

Someone who works as a scientist for a living. You may not understand this, but that is how science works. If you make a scientific claim then you must be willing to defend it.

You asked for:

1) data to support ID

Which I offered in the form of the existance of something

How is this *data*? The "existance of something" is now considered *data*?

that according to the second law of thermodynamics, should not exist- the ordering of physical laws at Planck Time during the big bang.

The physical laws that you claim *shouldn't* exist include the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I've included the definition of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics for you to discuss in your next iteration of your *theory*:

"An engine operating in a cycle cannot transform heat into work without
some other effect on its environment _or_ an engine operating in a cycle
cannot transfer heat from a cold reservoir to a hot reservoir without
some other effect on its environment"

For it not to support ID- it's now upon you to show how those physical laws could have come about without an input of information into the closed system of the universe at Planck time.

Item one: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics didn't exist in Plank time so that constraint didn't exist.
Item two: Individuals who posit a claim are the ones who supply the proof. That's how science works.

2) a scientifically defensible definition of 'irreducible complexity'.

To which I offered the example of the physical laws at planck time,

That is not a definition. See the discussion above - that example was offered as your data. You can't interchange one for the other.

for which nobody has been able to offer a grand unified field theory yet that makes sense of why the physical constants of the universe are what they are.

No one has been able to unify gravity with electromagnetic theory - yet. That doesn't mean your theory about ID is supported.

You are attempting to make a positive claim based on the lack of evidence. Are you aware that this is the "God in the Gaps" argument?

It isn't original, you know.

And how does this fact support ID?

The *only* useful difference between ID and evolution is this question- given the same set of physical laws, could species evolve different than they did?

No, the difference between ID and evolution is that something "intelligent" is substituted for random processes. There is no similarity at all.

Evolution claims yes- randomness exists in the universe, and it's possible that a different set of mutations would allow a different species to come into being and become intelligent. ID claims no- that even if we don't fully understand them yet, every little quark anywhere must obey laws set down at Planck Time, and from those laws everything else can be extrapolated.

Your understanding of Planck time is different from everyone else, I'm afraid:

"The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the 'quantum of length', the smallest measurement of length with any meaning.

And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a proton.

The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the 'quantum of time', the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10-43 seconds. No smaller division of time has any meaning. With in the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds."

Now I don't know how you have construed the definition of Planck time into a theory that ev

Quick, someone link to the Summon Bevets Card!

[MandoSKippy]

Does Bevets have a /. user?

Re:Agenda.....

[geomon]

Uh, as long as the exhibit is accurate in that Darwin had an anti-religous agenda.

Care to back that up with some evidence (from sources other than the creationist research orgs)?

Darwin Exhibit huh

[Nom du Keyboard]

Darwin Exhibit, huh. Does it include the evolution of DRM on audio CD's, and the roadkill *coughSonycough* along the way?

This just says something sad about America

[Deanasc]

None of the high tech companies can belly up to the bar and pick up the tab? That's just sad. I especially think the biotech companies have a duty to pick sides here. Where would some of them be without genetic engineering, proof of evolution if I've ever seen it? Genzyme, Biogen I'm looking at you! Or a company like Intel. What are christians going to give up computers because a chip maker sponsored the right side of the debate? Not after what the Vatican just said. So a small handful of fanatics clinging to dogma are going to push us all around with threats of boycots. I believe that's part of the definition of terrorism.

Making Evolution palatable to Fundamentalist Chris

[Nom du Keyboard]

$sys$Evolution.

Now only the geeks will learn about it.

You're in the minority.

[CyricZ]

Unfortunately, you're in the minority. The aggregate spending by religious extremist rednecks most likely far, far exceeds that which you (and other intelligent people) spend. Even if you'd deal with a company that helped fund such an exhibit, it is quite plausible that they'd lose many times that gain if there were a boycott by the religious factions.

You are correct about the most long-lived civilizations placing an emphasis on education. That has been shown historically time and time again. Such civilizations fail when their focus switches from education and development towards combat and religious extremism.

It may not be a pleasant idea at first, but many academics should consider leaving the US for greener pastures. Many European and Asian countries would gladly welcome true scholars from America who wish to advance knowledge, rather than fool around with religious fundamentalism. The standard of living will most likely be acceptable, and the cultures often far more becoming of scientific progress.

Re:You're in the minority.

[Kafka_Canada]

You're missing a, er, fundamental point, which is something the original poster at least hinted at. There are many different kinds of fundamentalism, and your gross simplification of "religious extremist rednecks" is completely inaccurate. They represent a small (but significant) percentage of the overall hostility to science, which comes from numerous different political viewpoints, socio-economic strata, and whatever other categories you threw in. For instance, I work at a non-profit that promotes the value of science, and the overwhelming majority of death threats, harrassment, etc., etc., that we see comes from secular northern environmentalists, animal rights activists, and so on -- in a word, the complete opposite of your idiotic stereotype.

FWIW, since you bring up the prospect of leaving the U.S. for "greener pastures," there are huge concentrations of anti-science leftists here in Canada, and overall a large degree of hostility to science as with other social democratic paradises (e.g. look at Europe's wider social reaction to genetic modification).

Educate yourself!

Re:You're in the minority.

[theStorminMormon]

You are correct about the most long-lived civilizations placing an emphasis on education.

I think it's worth pointing out that for much of human history those teaching and preserving literacy have been the religious.

-stormin

Re:You're in the minority.

[IPFreely]

Even if you'd deal with a company that helped fund such an exhibit, it is quite plausible that they'd lose many times that gain if there were a boycott by the religious factions.

Now there's an Idea...

Since the Pharma industry is based heavily on biology and bio-chemistry and in turn on theories of evolution, maybe we could start a campaign to equate medical drug use with support of evolution. Hit the zealots where they live (literally) by accusing them of supporting, by act, the theory of evolution if they take any medical drugs. Suggest if they really do not support evolution, they should forgo their medicine.

Then sit and watch the fallout. Some will bow to self preservation, continue using their medicine and dissapear from public view. Others might actually stop using their drugs. Either way, they are less likely to be a public problem.

I'm only suggesting this to the most vocal public critics. Hit them where they live, their public image. Alas, the probable effect is that lots of little old ladies would take it too literally and stop taking their own medicine in support. That would be a bad situation, even if it was of their own making.

Re:You're in the minority.

[|/|/|||]

just because someone doesn't agree with the myth of evolution doesn't mean that they're religious. It just means that they want irrefutable proof of something before they'll call it a "fact".

And that just means that they're ignorant. If they had any kind of science education at all, they would know better than to try and prove that anything is a "fact". Such a feat is impossible, which is why we have scientific theories that model the workings of the universe. Scientists know that our models aren't perfect, which is why we keep refining them. If we didn't refine them, if we took them as "fact", then we wouldn't be doing science - we would be practicing religion.

That's what makes evolution a theory rather than a myth - nobody "believes" that evolution is "true". We just agree that it's the best explanation that we have for a multitude of observations.

Right?

Re:You're in the minority.

[mghiggins]

Since the Pharma industry is based heavily on biology and bio-chemistry and in turn on theories of evolution, maybe we could start a campaign to equate medical drug use with support of evolution. Hit the zealots where they live (literally) by accusing them of supporting, by act, the theory of evolution if they take any medical drugs. Suggest if they really do not support evolution, they should forgo their medicine.

As much as I don't like the intelligent design folks, this is not a valid argument. ID doesn't say that evolution *never* happens - that would be a truly ridiculous claim, since there's direct evidence of it all over the place in the bacterial and viral worlds. Instead, they say that evolution can't explain *all* diversity, and that the big steps were magically instigated by a higher power.

So an ID person can quite happily live with drug design based on evolutionary principles, since they believe low-level evolution does happen.

Nothing hurts the argument against ID more than making an invalid point - they jump on it and demolish it, and make their side look stronger in the process to people who don't know what to believe. Remember that most of these people don't care what the truth is, they just want to win the argument, and they'll play dirty to do it.

Re:You're in the minority.

[theStorminMormon]

Certainly not all religion fosters literacy! That should go without saying. I was just pointing out that some religions do.

But I would contend that there are two broad types of religion: the sincere and the purely domatic. The purely dogmatic is pretty much arbitrary in its beliefs and requires adherents to surrender their own thoughts and opinions and simply believe (where belief is defined as merely using sheer will power on a belief - kind of like the sumo wrestling of wishful thinking). But there is another type of religious thought: the type that in its sincerity requires adherents (of either a conventional organized religion or free-thinkers) to evaluate, question, and doubt. Obediance in this context, while superficially identical, is fundamentally different because it is obediance informed by prior, reasoned belief. Kind of like trusting someone you know vs. doing whatever anyone tells you. Belief in those religions is of the conventional, rational sense - drawing conclusions from frequently insufficient data with full awareness that the data is insufficient.

I would also go further and say that those exact principles can be applied to science as well. There are plenty of dogmatic scientists. Even mathematicians have occaisionally been dogmatic throughout history. This isn't to say that science is inherently dogmatic - to the extent that they were dogmatic they were rejecting the real principles of science as we accept them today. True science is not dogmatic.

The only reason that religion is not equated with reason and rational thought is that there's a very, very long history of substituting one definition of belief for the other. This is a subtle change that requires adherents to obey without thinking and allows religious leaders to convert piety into political capital. They no longer get to evaluate their leaders, or even their religion itself, before swearing allegiance to it - allowing anyone to take over the church if they can sieze control of the hierarchy. This confusion of faith by dogma vs. faith as sincere belief continues in mainstream churches today and is institutionally embraced by some religions - thus leading to the (partially deserved) bad reputation of religion in general.

Meanwhile science continues to institutionally reject dogma for the most part. I'd say some arguably scientific institions like the AMA and the pyschiatric equivalent are just as dogmatic on some issues for political reasons. It may even be worth pointing out that science, as we understand it today, is much newer than religion. It already starts to make appeals to authority in some cases. This mirrors religious abuse. "Listen to me, because God gave me authority and thus you MUST believe or be a heretic!" is not that different from "Listen to me, because I have a PhD and therefore you MUST believe or be a fundamentalist/idiot/etc!"

Give science a few hundred years, and I wouldn't be that surprised to see more people attempting to hijack the institutions for their own political gain just as has been done to religions for thousands of years.

-stormin

As a devout christian...

[sinner6]

I am quite embarrased to count these people in my faith. Also I would like to point out that the pope has stated that the Bible is completely compatable with evolution.

Re:As a devout christian...

[tomcres]

Yes, and I would like to point out that Luther and Calvin have pointed out that the Pope is completely incompatible with the Christian faith.

The Real Problem Here

[Nom du Keyboard]

The real problem to the Fundamentalist Christians is not that Evolution is wrong -- but that it's right!

You can ignore what's wrong without worry. It's a lot harder to ignore what you know is right. It's a lot more likely that the dinosaurs are millions of years old, rather than that the entire Earth was created only 8K years ago and God put the fossils there to confound the unbelievers.

Trying to remove the only theory that actually has some evidence to support it from discussion overall, or elevate truly unproven speculations to having equal weight, only confuses children -- and harms the nation's future.

The problem with the exhibit

[digitaldc]

...is that it was not intelligently designed.

If they had only put a picture of Michaelangelo's 'Creation of Adam' instead of crusty ole Darwin, the money would have come pouring in.

Imagine the creationist's surprise when they find out that God is a woman in a surgeon's uniform.

Suggested reading: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FE C-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF

That is hardly helpful...

[rk]

When debating with many sects of American Protestantism, whose views of Roman Catholicism range from suspicion to abject hatred.

Re:Agenda.....

[Fafnir43]

Check before you post next time. Darwin was Christian - and literalist, at that - for most of the time he was working on his theory. Even after he renounced Christianity in 1851, he was more of an agnostic than anything else. He even kept helping with parish work - hardly the actions of someone with an "anti-religious agenda".

Re:Agenda.....

[sgant]

He had an anti-religious agenda? Great! I like this guy more and more! I mean, we all know that religion in all it's forms is a bunch of bullshit. Staggering, blatant bullshit. Bullshit of the highest order!

I hope these Christian idiots cry out more and more because we're finally starting to see what these people really are. The more they bellow out, the more intelligent people will just shake their heads and move on with their lives. This will be the death-nell for religion and it's about time. It's time for these idiots to grow up and stop believing in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and God and for them to STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY LIFE. I was one for tolerance. For letting people do what they wish and believe in what they wish in the privacy of their own homes. But now this minority...yes they're in a minority...of Christian assholes is now effecting my life, and in a very negative way.

It's time we take anyone that's religious and start treating them as if they had a mental illness. Stop giving these morons any air-time. Who the fuck cares if Billy Graham(and no, I don't care if I spelled his name right) had a vision about this country. If you have visions, that's an illness! Don't you get it? If God talks to you, you need to be on medication.

Yes, I know I'm going to be modded down to flame or troll or whatever. I don't care. I'm sick of this shit.

Re:Evolution is Theory After All

[geomon]

There's no denying that evolution is far from established fact and is fundamentally a theory with PLENTY of holes and unanswered questions.

As to the mechanism of evolution, yes there is debate in the scientific commmunity. As to whether evolution has occurred, there is no debate in the scientific community.

To me I see those zealots who accept evolution as fact in the same light as how *they* perceive Christians and Christianity: mindless minions of bad logic and reasoning.

So you reject the notion that there is any evidence for the *fact* that evolution has occurred?

Explain why there are so many shared genes between species. In fact, the human genome is one big code sharing exercise.

It just seems like evolutionists want to skip a whole bunch of steps and not do the actual science required to figure out if the evidence supports their theory or not.

What steps have they skipped?

That's the scientific method, folks. You never PROVE anything: you have evidence that either supports or doesn't support your theory.

And you haven't done anything to support your position other than flap your arms around wildly.

Show us the holes in evolution. Show us where steps have been missed. Show us how YOU would apply the scientific method any differently to, say, the theory of gravity.

BLASPHEMY!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you just love intelligent design, such flawless logic!!! Reminds me of this ever more relevant excert from one of the great movies of all time:

BEDEVERE:
        Tell me. What do you do with witches?
CROWD:
        Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...
BEDEVERE:
        And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1:
        More witches!
VILLAGER #2:
        Wood!
BEDEVERE:
        So, why do witches burn?
        [pause]
VILLAGER #3:
        B--... 'cause they're made of... wood?
BEDEVERE:
        Good! Heh heh.
CROWD:
        Oh, yeah. Oh.
BEDEVERE:
        So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1:
        Build a bridge out of her.
BEDEVERE:
        Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
RANDOM:
        Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...
BEDEVERE:
        Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1:
        No. No.
VILLAGER #2:
        No, it floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1:
        Throw her into the pond!
CROWD:
        The pond! Throw her into the pond!

BEDEVERE:
        What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1:
        Bread!
VILLAGER #2:
        Apples!

VILLAGER #3:
        Uh, very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1:
        Cider!
VILLAGER #2:
        Uh, gra-- gravy!

VILLAGER #1:
        Cherries!
VILLAGER #2:
        Mud!
VILLAGER #3:
        Uh, churches! Churches!

VILLAGER #2:
        Lead! Lead!
ARTHUR:
        A duck!
BEDEVERE:
        Exactly. So, logically...

VILLAGER #1:
        If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.
BEDEVERE:
        And therefore?
CROWD:
        A witch! A witch!...

Re:Agenda.....

[Xtifr]

Even if that were true (and I think you're thinking of Huxley), it has nothing to do with his theory or with evolution. Do you think that any exhibit about Newton's Theory of Gravity should have to "be accurate" in that Newton was a religious crank who spent a large part of his time working on insane theories of alchemy? Are Newton's beliefs about alchemy in any way relevent to his theories of gravity, thermodynamics or light?

In any case, Darwin's experience of religion was fairly limited. Most religions by now have come to terms with the discoveries of science and natural philosophy, including most forms of Christianity. It is not "Christians" who object to the Theory of Gravity^WRelativity^WEvolution, it is a tiny, but vocal (and annoying, and scary), minority of Christians. Christians who no more represent the mainstream of Christianity than the Muslim suicide bombers (who they strongly resemble) represent the mainstream of Mohammedism.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended
us to forgo their use."
    -- Galileo Galilei

Re:Evolution is Theory After All

[MightyMartian]

Can you cite a single theory that doesn't have holes? Are we to reject Einsteinian gravity because we don't have a quantum theory to go along with it? And who do you suppose these alleged zealots are? Are you calling about 99.9% of the scientific community zealots because they reject Creationism or its ugly child Intelligent Design?

Re:Agenda.....

[blamanj]

At the time he developed the theory of natural selection, Darwin was a Christian who had actually studied for the clergy, though probably for career reasons rather than a strong inclination to preach. He was never anti-religion and in fact, he delayed publication of his work in part because he realized the philosophical implications of his work. He eventually identified himself as agnostic.

That's it! I'm leaving America...

[thewiz]

And moving to Australia!

Re:Evolution is Theory After All

[TakaIta]

I always wonder what those supposed holes in the evolution theory are. There is a difference between a description of each mutation that has lead to every species that existed and a theory of how the processes work.

The evolution theory is a theory of processes, not a description of each step.

Of course there are some issues which might need a closer look, such as the Cambrian Explosion. And of course some more subtheories such as punctated equilibrium and convergent evolution might be proposed and be incorporated. You can discuss if evolution is a more a result of selection on the level of genes or on the level of populations. But those things are not "holes". Whatever the outcome of the scientific debate on these issues, it will not mean a fundamental change to the evolution theory as it is understood now.

So what are the holes you are talking about?

Some things never change

[Anita Coney]

Sadly, this is nothing new. KCET, the producing station of "Cosmos" series almost went bankrupt back in the 80s because they had a hard time securing corporate underwriters for that series.

He did not

[Jonathan]

Darwin in no way had an anti-religous agenda. He even considered becoming an Anglican priest when he was younger. Sure, after he developed the theory of natural selection he became an agnostic, as many (but not all), people who really understand the theory since also have, but he didn't discover natural selection as part of any agenda other than the furthering of biology

Answer to ID - the Avian Flu

[greg_barton]

The next time you get into an Intelligent Design debate, ask this question of the ID advocate: Are you afraid of the Avian Flu?

If they answer "Yes" you can slam them. Basically, the Avian Flu is only a threat if you think evolution is valid. The only way it can be a problem to humans is if it mutates, evolves, into a strain that can spread from human to human.

So, if they're afraid of the Avian Flu, they MUST believe in evolution. If they're not afraid of it, all the better. They'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. :P

As one of those fundamentalists...

[anomaly]

I agree that ID is not science.

Since origins cannot be tested, observed or falsified, it is not a scientific field of study. As a proponent of ID, I only care that my philosophy is taught in the science classroom as long as the naturalist's philosophy of origins is taught there. Sagan's line "The universe is all that there is, all that there ever was, and all that will be" haunts me. Why must materialist philosophy be taught in science class? As long as we're doing the wrong thing in that way, you should teach my philosophy there too.

Please note that I think that scientific study is a good thing. I also think that scientists should consider all possibilities. Gould contended that scientists have an 'a priori commitment to naturalism' which in my view prevents scientists from considering whether something supernatural might be the primary cause.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Re:As one of those fundamentalists...

[brpr]

Gould contended that scientists have an 'a priori commitment to naturalism' which in my view prevents scientists from considering whether something supernatural might be the primary cause.

Actually, the difference between the "natural" and "supernatural" doesn't exist a prioi -- we just consider anything which has a scientific explanation to be "natural". So before Newton came up with overwhelming evidence for gravity, the idea of action at a distance (i.e. forces, etc.) was considered to be supernatural (Newton himself was troubled by the need to make use of "occult forces" in his explanations).

The trouble with creationism, then, isn't that it relies on supernatural explanations (whatever they are exactly), but that it doesn't make any predictions. Let's assume that God created life on Earth. What does that tell you about life on Earth? Nothing, since God is inscrutable and he could have made life in whatever form he wanted to. Evolution, on the other hand, does make predictions. For example you predict that organisms will be highly modular and structured, that organisms will show clear similarities owing to their having a common ancestor, etc.

Re:As one of those fundamentalists...

[Copid]

Science is necessarily naturalistic, though. Scientific methods require the ability to observe data and test hypotheses. Allowing for the unobservable and untestable simply breaks the tools that ths scientific method provides. That doesn't mean that the supernatural is impossible or wrong. It just means that it can't be proposed and then tested by scientific methods.

People frequently confuse "thinking really hard about data" with "doing science." You can certainly think rationally and logically about the world around you and come to the conclusion that belief in the supernatural is warranted. That doesn't mean you're a nutcase. It does, however, mean that you've ventured into an area in which science is of no help and results of scientific study will be meaningless. If we allow reasoning about the supernatural into science classes instead of philosophy classes where it belongs, we will fail to teach our students the distinction between the two.

Again, this doesn't mean that the philosophers who think about these things are stupid or wrong or that science is the sole arbiter of the truth. It just means that science covers only a limited subset of what philosophy and logic cover (albeit it does so with phenomenal success) and that we do our children a disservice by not pointing that out.

Re:As one of those fundamentalists...

[el-spectre]

This is something of a false premise... why CAN'T we observe, test and falsify these things? Ok, the really old (microbial) life didn't fossilize too well, but we've got 2 billion years of decent records and it all supports evolution. We have a mechanism, evidence, and sufficient time... so what's the problem?

Here's why we teach "materialist philosophy": It works. Regardless of faith in supernatural beings, gas still makes your car go. Even if you disbelieve in petroleum, the engine will run. As they say, 'reality' is what is left even when you stop believing.

It is not practical to explore all possibilities. It's POSSIBLE that an alien in another galaxy makes my engine run, or Jesus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster... or chemical reactions. Since the latter seems to work remarkably well, the burden is on proponents of other claims to provide evidence.

Scientists content that there is nothing outside nature. This is because we have not experienced anything that is not explainable within our 'natural' outlook. There are things we don't understand very well, sure, but nothing entirely outside the rules.

Of course, it IS possible the God (or aliens, or the FSM) has rigged the universe to appear 'natural'. I can't see worshipping such a vindictive creator :)

Re:As one of those fundamentalists...

[NMerriam]

Why must materialist philosophy be taught in science class?...Gould contended that scientists have an 'a priori commitment to naturalism' which in my view prevents scientists from considering whether something supernatural might be the primary cause.

I'm not sure how anything non-material COULD be taught in a science class. Science is the study of nature and the material world, it says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of supernatural forces or entities. Supernatural explanations might well be correct, but they aren't measurable or testable, so in the context of science there simply isn't much to discuss. The alternative is that every measurement you take and experiment you perform has to be disclaimed as possibly supernatural in result, which again may be correct but doesn't add anything to the discussion.

Arguments over the validity of our senses, the possibility of being deceived by the material world and other existentialist dilemmas are certainly good for students to have, but they belong in the category of formal logic and philosophy, not science.

It strikes me as someone complaining that their physical education class doesn't also cover mental health topics -- that isn't the subject of the class! There is no judgement being placed on the value of mental health simply because your gym teacher doesn't discuss it -- indeed, most gym teachers and mental health professionals would agree that a healthy body and mind complement each other. Trying to shoehorn a discussion about depression into the rules of baseball would be as pointless as discussing supernatural forces in a science class.

Re:As one of those fundamentalists...

[dancpsu]

The belief of how anything outside of the universe behaves, whether it is a theoretical quantum metauniverse, God, a giant bowl of pasta, etc. is an untestable belief. Since the universe had a beginning at the Big Bang, something had to start it, and that something, being necessarily outside of the universe, cannot be tested.

The usefulness of an underlying philosophy to science is undoubtable though. The philosophy that the universe is ordered has helped aid scientific discovery (until quantum physics). The philosophy that the universe has a beginning and is constantly changing was fought against hard by the majority of the scientific community who believed in the philosophy of a relatively static universe until the data was too much for it to stand. The philosophy that evolution governs all biology has worked for quite some time, but it is a philosophy, and it is possible, like Newtonian physics, that it governs only a part of the full field. ID proposes more uniqueness and order to living organisms than evolution currently allows. As a guiding philosophy, it lives or dies on the biological discoveries in the future.

A governing philosophy to part of science should be taught, but not as a scientific fact, and a historical view of the different philosophies that have been successful and discarded would be as useful as teaching the current scientific understanding of reality.

Re:As one of those fundamentalists...

[d34thm0nk3y]

The belief of how anything outside of the universe behaves, whether it is a theoretical quantum metauniverse, God, a giant bowl of pasta, etc. is an untestable belief. Since the universe had a beginning at the Big Bang, something had to start it, and that something, being necessarily outside of the universe, cannot be tested.

The usefulness of an underlying philosophy to science is undoubtable though. The philosophy that the universe is ordered has helped aid scientific discovery (until quantum physics). The philosophy that the universe has a beginning and is constantly changing was fought against hard by the majority of the scientific community who believed in the philosophy of a relatively static universe until the data was too much for it to stand. The philosophy that evolution governs all biology has worked for quite some time, but it is a philosophy, and it is possible, like Newtonian physics, that it governs only a part of the full field. ID proposes more uniqueness and order to living organisms than evolution currently allows. As a guiding philosophy, it lives or dies on the biological discoveries in the future.

A governing philosophy to part of science should be taught, but not as a scientific fact, and a historical view of the different philosophies that have been successful and discarded would be as useful as teaching the current scientific understanding of reality.

What class do you want to cover this in again?

Re:Nothing ever really changes

[meringuoid]

Seems like the ultimate sin of hubris to me.

To my mind, these fundamentalists are more guilty of idolatry. The idolaters of old made themselves graven images of their gods, and worshipped them. In time they came to completely forget their gods and worship the images; this was abhorrent to the Hebrews, whose prohibition on such things had led them to relate to their god more directly.

What is the modern equivalent of these idolaters? Why, the biblical inerrantists. They have made themselves a graven image of God, not made of wood or of gold or marble but of words. They have defined their god so narrowly and restricted him within the ancient text, and cannot conceive of anything beyond the holy scripture. Thus these idolaters try to shout down anyone who dares examine the world itself for clues to the nature of the creation, and confine themselves to Genesis.

It's a tragedy, because assuming for the sake of argument that there is a God, then they're missing some of his best tricks. Evolution is a brilliant hack - a system that you can set up and just let run, and all the work is done for you. It must give God some of the same kind of kick we hackers get when we replace a thousand lines of brutal code with a single concise iterative function... And as for nucleosynthesis, the means by which the heavy elements that constitute much of the Earth were made, if God came up with that then he has a sense of style that I really like. Seeding the universe with metals from supernovae - amazing.

But no. The idolaters remain with their hollow Bronze Age god of words, words that they worship night and day, memorise and repeat to themselves, shout out at street corners... Idolatry, indeed.

uhm, hardly.

[slashkitty]

If I wanted to raise 10 billion dollars for world peace, and no one gave me any money, does that mean that EVERYONE is against world peace?

the sad fact is..

[tomcres]

Absolutely shameful. I'm almost ashamed to be a Christian...and I'm definitely ashamed of being an American. Exactly when was it that my country decide to abdicate rationality in favor of wanton superstition, reprehensible pseudoscience, and gross ignorance? Or was America ever rational to begin with? I may sound rather strident on this issue, but as you'll understand, this hits rather close to home. You see, in my church there is a Sunday school class where ID is being taught as a viable alternative to evolutionary theory. Every time I hear the teacher talking about such intellectually bankrupt concepts as 'irreducible complexity' I want to scream, but I'm not sure how to approach this without alienating the rest of the church. Suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

The real problem is that most churches have abandoned the Bible and have no clear authority so that anything goes. Without an established standard of doctrine, the church is left to the whims of sinful human beings with their own prejudices and imaginings. This is exactly why I left the Episcopal Church. It's become a theology zoo with every crazy idea expressed and scripture becomes only an afterthought, which even when it is consulted, is reconstructed and made to mean exactly something other than what the inspired writers meant when they put quill to paper. Most churches today are so infested with liberal theology, or its evil cousin, neo-Orthodoxy, that debates like this even take place. God's word used to mean something once. In most churches, it doesn't anymore.

How Inconsiderate

[hackwrench]

Please don't blame/insult the rednecks. Generally the religious extremists think they are above the rednecks. On top of that, my cousin who has talked about himself being a redneck is the least religious extremist on my mom's side of the family besides me. My father's side of the family is mostly Catholics, so they've got the religious side down, but apparently the pope has come down on the side of evolution. My mom's side was Catholic, but have mostly scattered to various apparently unaffiliated churches.

As an aside, intelligent design has many interesting philosophical points, and that's where it belongs, philosopy, not biology. Unfortunately Philosopy education in the United States is poor as well, which contributes to the problem.

Re:How Inconsiderate

[tjw]

As an aside, intelligent design has many interesting philosophical points, and that's where it belongs, philosopy, not biology. Unfortunately Philosopy education in the United States is poor as well, which contributes to the problem.

That's a good point.

Can you imagine the backlash that would ensue from the religious crowd if Philosophy was actually added to a state's mandatory curriculum? Actually having a true philosophical debate in public schools would probably be tantamount to Satan worshiping for the ID crown.

Philosopy is far too intertwined with reason, objectivity, and open mindedness to mesh with fundamentalist religion.

For example:
Parent: What did you learn in school today?
Child: We read about Friedrich Nietzsche.
Parent: Who's that?
Child: Some German philosopher who said God died.
Parent: *head a splode*

Re:How Inconsiderate

[Halfbaked Plan]

There would need to be a strong grounding in philosopy, including logic, etc., before the child would be introduced to Nietzsche. For this reason, your example is just a cartoonish illustration of your stereotypes.

That's right. You have the same narrow and bigoted view of 'fundamentalist religion' as the worst of the 'fundies.'

Tongue-in-cheek:

[daniil]

Name any society that has survived more than 4000 years ever.

The Illuminati.

They're not against science.

[CyricZ]

It's understandable that some animal-rights groups might be against the treatment of some animals by research scientists. They're more against animal testing than they are against science as a whole, for instance. The religious extremists, on the other hand, are often completely against science. They're not against a very specific technique, but against the whole of science.

Again, you're confused. Many Europeans do not resent genetic research. They do not, however, believe it to be correct to use such knowledge in ways that would violate basic human rights. We're talking about using such knowledge to create slaves, for instance. Or to dangerously modify crops.

The people you deem as "anti-science leftists" (many of whom are extremely conservative or libertarian) are often very pro-science. They take a stand against what may very well be considered unjustifiable use of scientific knowledge. We're talking about taking a stand against genetically modified crops, animal testing, and so forth. They're not against the entirety of science, unlike many religious fundamentalists.

Re:They're not against science.

[theStorminMormon]

Science makes no such fundamental assertion.

Really?

Science attempts to build a model of the universe based on observation.

Why observation? Why not imagination? Or random chance?

The fact is that the very PROCESS of observation is rooted in assumptions that observation can tell us things about the universe around us. Without this base assumption, there would be not motivation to observe.

I'm not saying that scientists go "gee, I think I'll believe in the principle of observation today", but the fact is that logically you have to believe that your physical sense can tell you something about the world around you or you have not coherent, rational reason to observe. Furthermore, you have to believe that, in general, the future will be like the past - that there's some kind of continuity beyond our experience. Without that assumption, then drawing conclusions from our observations would be meaningless.

It's not like I'm a lone psycho out here. This is all stuff that Hegel and Kant have been through thoroughly.

You guys want to equate "science" with rational thought. But the fact of the matter is that our current conception of science is just the recent of many paradigms to come and go. It is better than previous paradigms in the sense that now we have running water and can send men to the moon - but the essential fact is that it answers questions to our satisfaction - just as previous versions of science/philosophy/relgion did so for people at that time. This idea that our science is somehow inherently superior or that our system is 100% self-correcting is foolishness. Read some Kuhn, for crying out lout. There's a whole set of studies on the philosophy of science - and I'm not even close to an expert. But to pretend that science is some kind of holy, infinitely self-perfecting system is just ludicrous.

-stormin

Re:Evolution is Theory After All

[geomon]

I'm not going to debate certain aspects of evolution because I think it would be ridiculous. Yes, we have a fossil records. Yes, dinosaurs once roamed the earth. Yes, there are enough similarities betweem certain species to support the idea that they descended from common ancestors. Yes, the earth is roughly four gazillion years old based on our understanding of carbon dating, etc.. That's all well and good.

But it doesn't PROVE evolution.

Then I guess nothing other than the evidence you have cited yourself will ever convince you that evolution is real.

They're not doing the hard science and answering the tough questions, like why, for instance, if intelligence in humans is SO important and crucial to our survival (we have no sharp teeth, claws, we can't run or climb or swim well compared to the rest of the animal kingdom), then why did it take so long for intelligence to develop in humans (say within the past 100,000 years)? How was it possible that WE survived all those years effectively at a huge disadvantage physically?

That intelligence did not develop in the last 100K years. It developed over the course of 3.5 million years.

That's a tough question that NO ONE has been able to answer definitively with facts.

Pick up a good anthropology text written in the last twenty years. You will see the evidence presented for gradual intellectual development in higher primates including humans.

Instead, what we get is "there was once this primordial soup in the oceans (what it was we couldn't tell ya but it was there! and we can't replicate it!) and then some shit went down and here we are."

That is abiogenesis, not evolution.

You have skipped about 4.5 billion years of development from the primordial soup and humans too.

Wow. I'm stunned by the brilliance of that.

Then you don't read much.

And you're right: gravity is based on theory, just like relativity, and most of the "hard" sciences.

What constitutes a "hard" science?

But there are smart people doing responsible tough science on those theories. And they don't just throw shit on the wall to see what sticks.

Neither do geologists, biologists, paleontologists, or anthropologists.

Have you ever taken one of these courses to see how the ideas that support them were develeoped?

Re:Agenda.....

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

I didn't know before now that it was possible to make even less sense and rave even more senselessly than the anti-evolutionists.

I just want to say this

[Viper233]

Put Simply... there is no God, no Heaven, no Hell, no Devil, no reincarnation, no magic...

These figures/beliefs were created by the same creatures who believe and idolise them, i.e. humans.
In our existance (this world, universe) there are things that occur in this world that we cannot yet explain, this can make us feel somewhat insignificant and futile in our existance. It raises such questions as

• Why am I here?
• What is my purpose?
• What will happen to me when I no longer exist?
• What will be the consequences of my actions in this life?

This can somewhat be related to the need to believe in something!! (put simply in one aspect). Humans also feel compelled to hold morals and respect for others. Some(most) of us naturally become upset when people are treated unfairly(+many synonyms). Religion has been designed and evolved to accomodate and somewhat enforce this. E.g. don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat people, don't kill animals, don't eat meat, don't be greedy etc. Someone could probably better explain this need better than I can but be seen to be present in every culture with certain themes current through out.

Here are some other characters that I have believed in over my life (especially as a child) that were created by man

• Santa Claus
• The Tooth fairy
• The Easter bunny
• Superman
• The Teeenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
• Monkey Magic
• Jesus

I was told by an enlightened Christian friend in the past that I would be going to hell after I died due to me not accepting God and Jesus... at the time I didn't ask her what the consequences were for no longer believing in the other characters, I wonder what the consequences would be?

--
This is for you Claire

Re:I just want to say this

[Sahib!]

"You cannot prove or disprove God's existence. Of course, if one pays attention in Philosophy 101 nothing can be proved or disproved."

Perhaps, but logically it only makes sense to begin with the assumption that God doesn't exist. Going from there, the challenge is to find evidence which supports God's existence.

see also.

Re:I just want to say this

[Auckerman]

Doing my best to be objective and exact, I will explain why people like YOU are the reason christian fundamentalists attack evolution.

The ultimate problem is not with evolution per se, but with modernism. Higher Criticism (Wellhausen, Noth, et al), Darwinism (biological, sociological), various political paradims, pretty much any naturalistic explaination to the human condition, in their eyes, leads to Atheism. Once a single pillar of Christianity has been destroyed (see: the five fundamentals of faith for a more specific list), in their eyes, ALL of Christianity has been destoryed. Without the Christ, all are damned and there is no hope. That is ultimately the important thing to note.

In their eyes, the Christian Bible is inerrant. As such, all "science" will verify the text of the Christian Bible. If it does not, it because mankind has been lead astray by modernism (read: Satan) and fallen into a realm of logical fallacies.

There is an irony here, Intelligent Design (as they seem to describe it) has been primarily a modernist philosphical invention, until recently. It's roots are pretty much in the deistic prime mover, as such is a naturalistic attempt to talk about God. IMHO, Christian Fundamentalist who has accepted Intelligent Design, as it's described in the public debate, have walked up the first step towards modernism themselves. Early fundamentalist would be disgusted with them and attack them for heresy.

The reason they have accept Intelligent Design is ultimately because of the Founding Father Problem: the foundation of modern america starts with a Prime Move arguement which lead to "natural rights". In the late 19th to early 20th century, a lot of time was spent discussing this problem. This lead to a semi-successful attempt to repaint the founders as Christians and a partial acceptance of their arguements.

Re:I just want to say this

[Dirtside]

I wonder what the consequences would be?

Why, that's easy:

* Santa Claus - No more Christmas presents. Obvious.
* The Tooth Fairy - If you don't leave a tooth for the tooth fairy every so often, she comes and starts taking them herself.
* The Easter Bunny - You lose the ability to digest eggs.
* Superman - Lex Luthor turns you into Soylent Lex.
* The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - Two words: Citizen Krang.
* Monkey Magic - I... don't know what this is, sorry.
* Jesus - No valet parking for you! No, wait, that's Jesús.

So let me get this straight...

[jlowery]

US companies want to complain about the neglect of science education in this country, yet don't want to support an exhibit on one of the most groundbreaking ideas of modern science.

You get what you pay for, fellas.

Re:The "problem" with Evolution

[porcupine8]

can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

In fact, Darwin himself made predictions based on his theories that were proven true. Here is a quick overview of one example - he saw a particular flower and predicted that a particular shape of insect must exist to pollinate it, even though he knew of no such insect at the time. Such an insect was found many years later.

Evolution is called a theory because it does meet the scientific criteria for a theory - it has been thoroughly tested (come on, it's been around for over a century, do you HONESTLY believe no one has thought to test it??) and, yes, mathematically modelled even. Many times.

The problem with Intelligent Design is that it does NOT meet the criteria (that you yourself give) for a theory, but its supporters try to present it as one on equal footing with evolution. ID is a hypothesis or a conjecture, evolution is a theory. You seem to understand the difference - most people's problem is that they don't, and they think that since evolution is a theory that means we have no clue if it's really right.

huh?

[rodentia]

Then answer this, smart guy.

Sure, #######.

Show me a single-celled organism evolve into a multi-celled organism.

zygote ==> blastocyte.

It is exactly parallel to some essential evolutionary steps, and it happens to everyone!

There are these leaps in evolution that requires some magical altering of how life works at all that evolution just can't explain.

This claim is completely baseless. The leaps of evolution are exactly what does explain how life works. It is, so far, the only theory that adequately explains empirical data on speciation and the differentiation of lifeforms. Just the patterns that ID loves to refer to as *designed*, just the challenges that ID refers to as *irreducible* are the strongest corroboration of the theory of evolution.

You can't expect anyone to believe that you have flowers that rely on bees to fertilize them and bees that rely on flowers to feed on that have managed to "evolve" from some roots.

There are several problems here, beginning with the expectation of belief. No one expects you to *believe* anything. You believe in a God, you accept a theory. An essential insight that you miss is the fact that evolution is opportunistic, not deterministic. Bees eat flower sap because it is there and few other organisms compete for it. Thousands of species of flowers have nothing to do with bees, relying on beetles, ants or birds.

How droll that we are still having this pseudo-debate. I thought this subject tired and thoroughly vanquished thirty years ago in high-school. Now we are further behind than ever. America has been ever superstitious and resistant to authority (scientific or political, even religious). It is the infantile wing of American anti-authoritarianism, and the charlatans that do not scruple to pander to it, which feeds this disease of faith-based doubting.

Re:Evolution is Theory After All

[MightyMartian]

Could you tell me how many actual biologists you have talked to, or how much literature you've actually read that is written by biologists? Actually, I'd love to know how much science you have even read, because you don't seem to have even the vaguest notion of what a scientific theory is. Here's the first clue to the extent of your ignorance. Anyone that uses the word "prove", particularly in ALL-CAPS, demonstrates a profound ignorance of precisely what science is and how it functions.

Evolution does not guarantee that any structure will form. Intelligence is one solution to a particular set of problems, but the overwhelming number of organisms on this planet survive without even possessing more than one cell. However, that being said, intelligence of any kind will give an organism some specific benefits as far as judging, measuring and accumulating information about the environment. Rerun the tape from say, 500 million years ago, and there's no guarantee that you would have any organism with a brain larger than a few thousand neurons. But once you do have organisms with nerve bundles capable of not only receiving sensory data, but manipulating it, then such a species will overcome some of the barriers to such an expensive adaptation (remember, all structures require energy to develop and maintain, which is eye the biomass of this planet is overwhelmingly unicellular). As each member of a population is going to have some variation, some members will have larger or more complicated neural networks, and providing that such a feature of the primitive brain makes those particular members even slightly more likely to survive and reproduce, then, statistically, you will start to see brain size and complexity increase.

This is precisely what we see with hominid evolution. The earliest bipedal apes had brains little larger than a chimpanzee's. As we can see from modern chimps, a larger brain isn't necessarily required for survival. But for early hominids bipedalism meant a new environment, new pressures that a larger brain would make individual members more likely to reproduce. To loosely paraphrase Richard Dawkins, half a brain is better than no brain at all.

You seem to assume that there is some direction to evolution, that somehow a brain must be an inevitable organ, or that human intelligence is some necessary result of some ladder of evolution. Well, it isn't. It's simply good fortune on our part that a larger neural organ in some distant ancestor gave that critter a slight edge in the survival game. Play the tape again, and you might not have anything more complex than a planarian.

But evolution is not a shit-at-the-wall discipline. It makes some key predictions which have been confirmed numerous times since Darwin's day. The faunal progression was the earliest confirmation, but is no longer the most important. The key evidence for evolution now is the molecular data, which clearly shows, as was predicted, that all extant organisms fit within a nested hierarchy with its root to be found in a single common ancestor. With each species we analyze the genome of, we find this key observation only bolstered. All life on this planet came from a single common ancestral population, probably 3.5 to 3.9 billion years ago, though horizontal gene transfer means that it won't be a single ancestor, but rather a small bush of unicellular organisms swapping genes.

Re:Making Evolution palatable to Fundamentalist Ch

[Nom du Keyboard]

Step 4. Jesus Profits!!!

Shouldn't that be: Step 4. Jesus Prophets!!!

Re:Agenda.....

[Mahou]

i don't believe in atheists, especially ones that tell people they should grow up in order to stop believing in God, as if God is a childish concept. (now i kinda agree with billy graham being weird and other people too but to just renounce religion is just as sickening as renouncing science)

yes, i know im gonna get modded down to flame or troll or whatever, i don't care, im sick of this shit

The easy fix

[Anonymous Coward]

The easy fix is to abolish the laws that give churches and religious groups tax exemption. Treat them as political groups.

Then it becomes a bit harder for these politicians to hide behind the Bible.

As someone raised Catholic, I find it a bit offensive that people manipulate the Bible for their political gains. None of these "Evangelicals" are really religious. Well, maybe 3% of them. The rest really have no grasp of Christianity. They just follow the political movement.

Here's a way to have fun with them:
Ask them to quote an explain the beatitudes (after they explain what it is first). Anyone who remotely follows Jesus would know what they are. They are considered to be the #1 teaching of his by Christians. It's funny to do. Just be aware most don't even know what they are, and it will get them extremely upset, and perhaps even violent since they get put on the spot. Especially if you do it in front of their church friends.

"Evangelicals" can quote only parts of the bible that relate to politics, but when you ask them something else.. they get very defensive.

I hate politics with a passion. To be totally honest, I don't even know who ran for govenor in my home state. I found out there was an election when they announced the winner. Why? Because I couldn't give a cr@p. Two corrupt people running for the same job. Who cares? Both steal money and take bribes from the same people. Makes no difference to me.

I just get pissed when people start pushing politics in the name of God.

You know who else uses this strategy to push religion? Bin Laden. Osama is nothing more than a Televangelist with iron balls. Both go after desperate people and push their sick political beliefs on them, and claim it's "in the name of [god]" ([god] being whatever term they use to refer to their superior power) . Both have a hatred of those who don't abide by their political beliefs. Difference is Osama is actually convinces people to give their lives for this BS. Televangelists just wants to walk away with their victims hard earned money, and rarely get people to give their lives for it (exceptions for the Eric Rudolphs of the world).

I hate these people. It really is criminal. Just a 200 or so years ago, most evangelicals would have been burnt alive for manipulating the Bible to meet their needs.

Re:The easy fix

[fishbowl]

"The easy fix is to abolish the laws that give churches and religious groups tax exemption. Treat them as political groups."

The reason religious groups are tax exempt is because governments can easily use taxes as a basis for elimination of any religious group that voices opposition to the state.

In the US it's on the very short list of reasons people fled their homes seeking to found a new country, and the doctrine is rooted in the very foundation of the system.

Good luck changing that.

Mainstream and radical Christians

[typical]

Christians who no more represent the mainstream of Christianity than the Muslim suicide bombers (who they strongly resemble) represent the mainstream of Mohammedism.

You know how a lot of right-wingers like to attack Islam because (no matter what it does) it doesn't condemn "extremists" enough?

Yeah?

I want to know the same thing about mainstream Christianity. If these people really are completely out of whack with mainstream Christians, then *why* do said mainstream Christians not condemn them and distance themselves from them? If the pope isn't mainstream Christian, I'm not sure who is.

The pretty obvious take on Christianity is that it's a lot of bogus reasoning and emotional argument. *However* that doesn't mean that it's a social parasite -- it can have positive social benefits that outweigh the drawbacks of telling people silly things about the universe. Maybe if you don't tell people that there's a big scaly guy with a pitchfork ready to screw them over if they sin, they'll get along with people better.

Maybe Christianity is another way to fix public good problems in society. Public good problems are instances where rational individuals acting in their own individual best interests wind up having everyone worse off. Government solves the problem some of the time by simply altering the point values so that games are no longer public good problems. Nobody is going to build an interstate highway system, because it does them no good. I'm not even going to build thirty feet, because it does me no good. But *everyone* wins if we have a big road system that spans the whole US.

It looks like Christianity attacks the problem by simply making the agents act in a non-rational manner. Sure, maybe it's better in the short term to steal something, and if everyone stole, society wouldn't work very well and we'd lose out. But if you think that you're going to go to hell if you steal something, then a lot of social problems just go away.

The problem is that for Christianity to be nothing more than a social symbiote, it needs to *not cause problems for society*. One of those is standing in the way of science. Science produces phenomenal benefits for society -- in the past two hundred years alone, the industrialized world has seen huge standard of living improvements and lifespan increases. It's almost without exception a bad way to try to prevent science from moving ahead. The problem is that Christianity often seems hellbent on combatting science, and that's where I start having a real problem with Christianity.

Too much fear.

[stlhawkeye]

They fear the fundamentalists too much. The majority of Christians are fairly reasonable people who aren't going to boycott anything. This is one of those rare issues where companies are excessively defferential towards what they perceive to be a mainstream. Like the bank that stopped using a pig in its advertisement to avoid offending Muslims, I don't think American corporations need to fear fundamentalist Christians nearly as much as they do.

Myths

[Bassman59]

I hope that in a couple thousand years, if we haven't blown up the planet, civilizations will look back at the Christ story and the Biblical creation myths as exactly that, a mythology, one viewed in the same way that we look at the myths of the old Greek and Roman gods.

Re:Nothing ever really changes

[hacksoncode]

Why not believe in some supernatural being, until such time as we have something more concrete?

Well, mostly because it doesn't really answer any questions either. Now I just have to figure out where that supernatural being came from, and I have no hope of ever figuring that out because by definition a supernatural being is outside of nature.

Is there something hard to understand about conservation of mass-energy? If there's matter and energy in the Universe today, then well proven physical laws tell us that it was *always* there. It didn't "come from" anywhere. Such a statement is a meaningless noise.

Re:Evolution is Theory After All

[geomon]

So you support my point.

Everyone who read our exchange is laughing at this point. I punched holes in your first argument and now you claim I support you.

I say 100,00 years ago the first signs of human intellidence appear, you say over the course of 3.5 million years. How is it we survived? According to the theory of evolution and "survival of the fittest", we shouldn't be here. But we are. Why?

We survived because our intelligence, developed over the course of 3.5 million years, advanced faster than our predators in that same time frame.

Again, you should be getting this from an anthropology text.

Look at it another way: wouldn't certain animal species that use elaborate mechanisms (think peacock) to attract mates also be more attractive to predators and easier to catch and kill? I mean a peacock can't do shit. *I* can catch one and I'm fat lazy bastard. How come they survived? And how exactly and why did they develop the way they did?

Your statement assumes that peacocks of today existed as they did before humans began domesticating animals. If you are looking for an animal that can't protect itself from predators, look at cattle. They can barely give birth to a calf due to the fact that humans have protected them from predators for thousands of years.

Evolution in action.

And don't get me wrong. I don't think reading some 4,000 year old book did it. There is some other explanation for it, and I leave it up to the scientists to figure those things out. The theory of evolution is a start, but it IS flawed or in another sense incomplete.

I would suggest reading Origins of the Species first before claiming evolution doesn't exist. It can be found here.

Re:Evolution is Theory After All

[Copid]

Look at it another way: wouldn't certain animal species that use elaborate mechanisms (think peacock) to attract mates also be more attractive to predators and easier to catch and kill? I mean a peacock can't do shit. *I* can catch one and I'm fat lazy bastard. How come they survived? And how exactly and why did they develop the way they did?

I've heard similar arguments before and they always boggle my mind. If it were true that the peacock's plumage would attract more predators, then there would be no peacocks now REGARDLESS of how they got that way, yes? The whole point is moot. As for the specific example, the birds are naturally skittish and surprisingly tough for their size and weight (read: metatarsal spurs).

Anyway, it's amazing to me how many people say "I have never heard a valid explanation for X, so the theory is wrong" when they clearly haven't done any research on the topic. No, unless you subscribe to the right journals, nobody has mailed you any theories on the evolution of intelligence. No, nobody mentioned it on the subway. You haven't overheard any good conversations on it in any bars. There are people doing a lot of research on the topic, though, even if you haven't been exposed to much of it as a lay person.

I could just as easily say that computer engineering is stupid because nobody took the time out to spoon feed me an explanation of how field effect transistors work. That would be stupid, though. I could just take some classes and read up on the physics and convince myself that these electrical engineers aren't a bunch of crackpots. I have no idea why people get away with lazy armchair criticism of biology when they'd get called on it for so many other topics.

Re:Agenda.....

[indianajones428]

If you want to know about Darwin's opinion on religion, I think the best source would be Darwin himself (an interesting read, especially the bits that were edited by request of his family).


If I understand this correctly, Darwin started out quite religious, slowly came to reject Christianity and the thought of any god at all, then settled on being agnostic. Here's a couple paragraphs that I thought stood out:

Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.

This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species ; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt--can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions ? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience ? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake. I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.

Based on the entire chapter (not just the bit I've pasted here), it seems Darwin didn't really like Christianity when he wrote Origin of the Species. Of course, this just explains his beliefs, and doesn't really say how much these beliefs influenced his writing, so I guess it's not really proof of anything.

But whether or not you agree with him religiously, he seemed to put a great amount of thought into his beliefs, and I think he should be respected for that.

Re:Evolution is Theory After All

[moz25]

I mean a peacock can't do shit.

Actually, they can: their feathers make it them look menacing to would-be predators. Now you may not find it very scary, but then again, you probably don't run around naked eating raw meat either.

The theory of evolution is a start, but it IS flawed or in another sense incomplete.

Why "IS" it flawed? Genetic science sure seems to provide a lot of emperical support for evolution having taken place and still taking place. Aren't you familiar with antibiotics?

I'm crying inside

[iariar]

With regards to holes. There's lots of articles written by detractors of evolutionary theory that talk about all sorts of holes and having read them, the holes *THEY* talk about are merely holes due to their own ignorance having not read up on the subject they're critisizing. I've read so many articles citing topics on which evolutionary theory has not given answers then picked up several books in my shelves and found answers to those topics. The main flaw seems to be in thinking natural selection IS evolutionary theory, but it's not. Sexual selection is a prime example of an area the detractors seem to have no knowledge of (i say this based on their arguments i've read on the web and in books). I've seen these same ignorances wildly quoted as holes again and again. Promoting the idea of Intelligent Design by playing on peoples ignorances just doesn't seem very christian to me.

Anyway, since when is a hole in one theory any proof of another. Most Intelligent Design arguments are based on this most simple of logical fallacy. A hole in evolutionary theory does not in any way make creationism any more likely!

And to compare evolutionary THEORY to Intelligent Design being a THEORY is equivocation and another obvious logical fallacy.

Re:The "problem" with Evolution

[the eric conspiracy]

As I understand the "problem" with Evolution as described by Darwin is that it may accurately describe what we observe, but it has no predictive power.

Then your understanding is very flawed. Evolution in fact has quite strong predictive power. For example, evolutionary theory is very useful in predicting the number of harmful genes in a particular animal's genome.

In fact one of the greatest trimuphs of science was the use by Darwin himself of evolution to predict existance of certain species of insects by examining the morphology of plants that they would pollinate.

As another religious person...

[weston]

I don't get why ID has to be taught in schools, or why it's such an important fight to draw a line on.

I don't see evolution as a big threat. Does it really make Man any lower than the doctrine of The Fall or Original Sin does? Does it necessarily deny the existence of a creator? Does that really take away any capacity to move from a fallen state and be Spiritually born of God, which is the important part of Christianity anyway? The only thing it really seems to threaten is some specific, literal readings of the Creation account in Genesis.

It just seems like a weird bone to pick.

Literal Interpretation is Heresy

[shis-ka-bob]

The normal (Catholic, Orthodox and mainstream Protestant) position is that the Bible is the Word of God as revealed to man. The Revelation is considered perfect, but the imperfect writer records the message imperfectly. This is completely consistent with Shanon's information theory describing communication through a noisy (imperfect) channel. If I was a Bronze Age scribe and the history of the universe from Big Bang through the ascent of man (via evolution) was revealed to me, my recount of the history would be no more accurate that the average stoner's recollection of an acid trip. Even a casual reading of Genesis 1 and 2 shows logical inconsistencies in things as basic as to the order of Creation.

Fundimentalists that insist on a literal interpretation should be called to task as Heretics. I will argue that a Fundimentalist that reject his intellect is rejecting one of God's greatest gifts.

Science does not generate facts.

[jpellino]

There's a reason that there's no denying - because science does not generate facts. Via empiricism, it generates hypotheses which can contribute to theories that may eventually be so well supported that they're expressed as laws.

About the only fault that can be found there is Hume's observation that empiricism (it worked the same before, it should work the same again) is a circular argument in that we keep using empiricism because if empiricism worked before, empiricism should work again... But since every intellectual endeavor has similar logical weaknesses if you look closely enough (let me get this straight - the bush was on fire, and talking to you?), it's a choice as to which job you take - poet, philosopher, scientist, shaman, etc...

Science is the endeavor which seems to be best at making sure you know why the sky looks like that today and what will happen if you stand in front of a moving bus. It's useful. It can lead to awe. Not a bad day's work.

So there's a first problem with the creationsism and ID crowd - contending that evolution is not a fact. Science concedes that. Science is not about generating facts anymore than religion is. The too-literal scientist will be unpleasantly surprised when the outlier scenario occurs and the damn thing blows up. The too-literal cleric will have a heck of a time explaining how one set of parents had a set of kids who then populated the earth (the admitted incest of their kids has been labeled an OK thing just for them, just in that time - situation ethics at its best, sonething most fundamentalists abhor).

My problem is that if ID is what's at work, then you have big problems negating random genetic variation, radiocarbon dating, and natural selection. If the basis of radiocarbon dating (radioactivity and decay) is false then the sun doesn't fire and it's OK to picnic in the reactor core. If random genetic variation is false, then these two lone deciduous teeth in my jaw and the two-piece navicular bones in my feet are just cruel jokes played on me by an intelligent but way too detail-distracted designer. As far as natural selection, lots of those IDers have goofy looking dogs - their owners can trace their dog's heritage back to a few thousand years ago (way more recent than even the earliest of the young-earth ages). They got those goofy (and by goofy I mean not a wolf) dogs by unnaturally selecting mates and isolating these breeders from the rest of the population, thus accelerating the rate of change in successive generations. But somehow this process can't occur naturally?

I'm a scientists and a Catholic. I've never seen any true conflict between the two. When I want inspiration in the good that we can do and archetypical stories of the human condition, I read scriptures (as well as Shakespeare, Heinlein, Steinbeck, Helprin and even Charlotte's Web). When I want to make sure I don't get hit by a bus or drown, I read a textbook and check out experiments. It's a case of "Pray to God but row towards shore".

Re:Feminized?

[hackstraw]

"Western society is getting so feminized"

Before I jump to conclusions, could you please further
elaborate on your meaning with this statement?

Women and men are different. I know that is not a popular opinion, but the boobies and the having kids thing kinda comes to mind.

Maybe I'm just traditional or old fashioned, but I see women/females as being more nurturing, emotional, and less competitive and authoritarian than men.

Western society is getting more like the emotional and nurturing side. Like the "high self esteem" plan vs doing something to feel good about yourself. Look at divorce laws and statistics and tell me they are not female slanted (in the US at least).

I'm glad you didn't jump to conclusions. In fact, many of us "nerds" are more on the female side of things in that we want everybody to win, and root for the runt of the litter. In many ways I am that way too.

Sometimes I wish I were more "manly" and had more aggressive tendencies that I despise, but I don't.

Re:Evolution is Theory After All

[geomon]

During the same time, our predators were getting faster and stronger and we were getting....smarter???

Who said our predators were getting faster and stronger?

You have evidence to support that assertion?

Sure, if you live in the modern world with the internet and taxi cabs and books and shit, that'd be a big deal. But if you're some ancestor of ours out in the wild, you'd be pretty low on the totem pole, so to speak, in terms of survivability. So how is it we did it? Before intelligence we had every disadvantage.

So do rabbits. We could climb trees and survived for several million years in trees before the jungle changed to savannah.

Which would you take in a fight: an unarmed man or a bear? a gorilla? a crocodile? a shark? a dog? I wouldn't want to face any of these alone in the wild.

You discount the advantange that prey have: rapid gestation and ovulation cycles.

Did you factor this in when you created your argument?

We were fundamentally physically unequipped to survive in the wild 3.5M years ago.

We didn't look anything like we do now 3.5 million years ago.

Domestication is not evolution.

Domestication is an evolutionary mechanism.

We have domesticated cattle, not caused a genetic mutation that makes them different from previous generations.

You have evidence to support your conclusions?

Close and distant relatives of the domesticated cow continue to survive in the wild, human intervention or not.

Really? Where?

Here in the US there is only the Longhorn and it shares few traits with the domesticated varieties we raise for beef.

Buffalo roamed the plains of North America for millenia before humans with no problems.

By sheer number.

How are they doing now?

It's about tolerance and religious freedom

[anomaly]

There's an all-out war to preclude any public religious speech in this country. Don't believe that? Why is the ACLU filing suit against Las Cruces NM for having Crosses in their logo? the town is known as "THE CROSSES!" It's revisionist history at best. It's persecution of the Christian worldview at most. It's troubling either way.

There's a movement of people hostile to the Christian worldview and this step is the next one in the removal of my freedom of speech and in the battle for the minds of American children. Perhaps you will perceive me as being alarmist or extremist, but I feel strongly that my civil rights are at risk.

The Evolution/ID debate is simply the latest front in the culture war between people who believe in absolute truth and those who do not. Evolutionary theory is a reflection of a worldview that is in stark contrast to the Christian worldview. Why is it that so-called scientists are troubled that there might be an alternate explantion which is different from the explanation acecpted by the crowd? The religion of scientists seems to be as scared of revolutionary ideas as the church at one time was of Galieo's theories.

I think that speciation through evolution is a terrible idea, and is simply untrue. It's not provable or falsifiable for that matter. Why should this be taught? Because the current conventional wisdom is that this is true? I submit to you that the concept of speciation through evoolution will be considered archaic bad science in 100 years.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Re:It's about tolerance and religious freedom

[dancpsu]

Actually, I think the debate is more along the lines of a sort of evolution metaphilosophy, which states something like:

1) We can observe changes over generations to the point of speciation.
2) Therefore all life came about through natural observable chemical processes.
3) Therefore life needs no creator.
4) Therfore God doesn't exist.

While the first point is observable and valid, the second three veer off into philosophy-land. Point 1 isn't what is being debated in courts and schoolboards, points 2-4 are. However, not separating points 1-4 and calling it all "evolution" has served both to promote Atheism, and muddy the debate by switching meanings whenever it is expedient to do so. You get all the usual false arguments that Creationists shouldn't use medicine because it came about using Part 1. Creationists don't care about Part 1. They are fine with part 1 (except maybe the semi-arbitrary classification of a species), but proponents of the whole evolution metaphilosophy seem to always want to make the argument that Creationists deny Part 1, making them scientifically backward, dangerous, stupid, etc.

proof of evolution seen in micro labs every day

[smellsofbikes]

So the way you test the mutation-causing tendency (mutagenicity) of a chemical is: you take a bunch of bacteria that are lac-, which is to say they cannot use the sugar lactose as an energy source. You expose them to the chemical in question, dilute them to a known concentration of bacteria per volume of solution, and then try and grow them on an agar plate that contains only lactose as an energy source. You count the number of colonies that grow. Since you know how much material you dumped on the plate, and you know the concentration of bacteria in the material, you know how many bacteria you just dumped in. You divide the number of colonies by the number of bacteria and get a small number, somewhere between 0 and 1. (it'll be a lot closer to zero.) The larger the number, the more mutagenic the chemical. The point being, that it damaged the bacterial DNA, and in repairing the damage, some bacteria managed to start digesting lactose, so they lived. All the others, the ones that weren't damaged or the ones that were damaged some other way, starved.

That is evolution. That is evolution happening in *one* generation.

This test is done every day in every large chemical, pharmaceutical, and cosmetics company in the world, thousands of times. It is an industry standard. It is observable, repeatable, and proveable.

A back-of-the-envelope calculation sez that there have been roughly 10 trillion generations of bacteria in the history of life. If we can see bacteria go from starving to suddenly able to digest and live on lactose in just one generation, how much more could they do in 10 trillion generations? Develop eyes? Seems pretty low-caliber to me. Imagine how much more they could've done in that period if intelligently guided: we'd all be immortal, telepathic, and flying.

(here's a partial discussion of mutagenesis and restriction plating.)

Re:Feminized?

[Snocone]

I see women/females as being ... less competitive

Ho, ho, ho.

You, my friend, have apparently never encountered more than one woman at a time.

Women are _way_ more competitive than men are in regards to their social pecking order.

Religion had benefits...

[jotaeleemeese]

... for medieval and primitive societies.

For technological, democratic, inidividualistic societies religion is probing to be a divisive obstacle to progress.

If religious types would keep their nonsense to themselves I would have no problem with religion. But the ones that are not trying to kill you, are trying to convert you, to control how you live or to judge your actions. They simply have no space in a modern, advanced society based in mutual respect.

The sooner we manage to convince people of the lack of any redeeming value of religion for modern, intelligent, rational people, the better.

More Disturbing

[umbrellasd]

Not only do I think this is valid, but depending on your definition of science, science itself has not been around for very long at all. European notions of science came along in the past few hundred years for the mostpart. But there are some ancient cultures that had a pretty "scientific" approach to understanding the world. Still, I think it is pretty clear that things did not really get moving until modern times (beginning with the Renaissance).

The oldest science I have direct experience with comes in the form of Qigong which is an ancient medicinal discipline dating back to at least 4000 years ago. Then again, the modern "scientific" medical community has laughed derisively and dismissed 4000 years of such "science" as nonsense. Things have begun to change recently largely do to the preponderance of anecdotal evidence citing dramatically improved health that correlates with Qigong. As a scientist, I am not saying it is causal; I am just saying there is enough of a correlation that people have stopped laughing.

So China has had a scientific tradition for 4000 years, in which case, they may win the prize for longest lasting scientific civilization, or if you are one of the derisive laughers they are just barely stepping into the scientific world and Europe with only a couple hundred years headstart which is nothing to a civilization that has spanned 4000 years. Then again, many different governments have come and gone in China in that time. Has the society survived that? I'd say that as a nation, the Chinese have had a continuous cultural identity that entire time so, yes.

As far as intelligent design goes, these people are not saying that the scientific method is crap. Not as far as I can tell, and if some are, they are the minority idiots that no one needs to worry about because they are so incapable of rational thought they are not likely a threat to anyone other than themselves. The smart people that support intelligent design are just saying that they believe there are gaps too large in the evolutionary path to be accounted for by Darwinian evolution, as in: over time mutation and natural selection lead to species differentiation in harmony with the organisms habitat. They are not saying that science is crap. They are saying that they feel there are gaps in science that need to be accounted for and are not yet.

I think every scientist worth his or her salt would readily acknowledge that there are gaps all over the place in science. That is what drives us to further discovery. Our curiosity about that gaps. And the intelligent design people are right, if they are saying there are gaps in evolutionary theory. Damn right there are. Did Darwin figure out every evolutionary trick up Nature's sleeve in his lifetime? Have we filled in all the gaps in a couple hundred years, keeping in mind that Nature has been playing this game for hundreds of millions of years at least? No way.

If we some day find a periodic genetic record of a protozoan evolving into homo sapiens, then yes, we could certainly make a very conclusive argument. But I think anyone will agree that it is absurdly improbable that we can do that. Which means that scientists have to take a leap of faith just like any religious person. Every theory or law of physics is a leap of faith. "What if this is true," asks a scientist. Then they go devise real world experiments to show conclusively that the supposition is true. Intelligent design people are saying that Darwin's theory is not supported by enough real world experiments to show a protazoan evolving into you.

Can't really argue with them. Any scientist that discounts God because there is no experiment to conclusively demonstrate existance is as dumb as a person discounting science because it does not conclusively show that my Great^10^100 Grandfather was an amoeba.

Re:More Disturbing

[daveb]

ahh yes - such a convincing argument.

You can't discount mythical beings because you can't conclusivly prove that the best non-magic explanation isn't flawed.

Personally I think they should add the Ancient Ones as potential creators too.

you go guy

Re:Know one think, they just follow the crowd

[Bassman59]

"We are not allowed to say that a theory is just a theory in school anymore."

What's not being taught is the true meaning of the word "theory" and how it applies to scientific research.

Essentialism is a lie.

[Inoshiro]

"Women and men are different. I know that is not a popular opinion, but the boobies and the having kids thing kinda comes to mind."

That's a nice, provable biological difference.

"Maybe I'm just traditional or old fashioned, but I see women/females as being more nurturing, emotional, and less competitive and authoritarian than men."

Now, is that a product of biology, or a product of the surroundings in which a woman is raised? You don't know. No one does.

Women and men are equivalent in every sense that matters. To say that someone is aggresive because they have a penis is the same thing as saying someone is pleasant because they have a vagina. To say that someone is good with money because they are a jew, or that someone is less intelligent because they are black -- these are all features of a theory called essentialism. Essentialism says that someone is a certain way because of their biology, not their own free will, their experiences, or how they were raised.

I think we should take a serious look at how women are raised and how we expect them to behave (Google search for pleasant; note how the 2nd hit is for a doll maker called "American Girl"!), rather than use biological means to justify differences. Essentialism is a lie that people like Adolf Hitler used to justify terrible attrocities. For you to pipe up in support of essentialism is a mark of how little you have researched your own opinions.

Re:Essentialism is a lie.

[fyngyrz]

Essentialism is a lie that people like Adolf Hitler used to justify terrible attrocities. For you to pipe up in support of essentialism is a mark of how little you have researched your own opinions.

That's way too generalized to reflect reality.

Biological differences can (and do) lead to differences in emotional depth and "emotional intelligence", cognitive abilities, athletic potentials both realized and nascent, immune system / disease resistance, height, intelligence, secondary sexual characteristics, bone structure, child bearing / rearing capabilities, eye color, bone density, resistance to pain... the list is endless because it includes everything.

It is politically correct nonsense to say that biological differences, miscast in PC terms as "essentialism", are non-existant or irrelevant. In real human terms, differences matter when they are significant; and they they are certainly significant when they are pivotal, or fundamental, in degree with regard to a particular situation. If you ignore differences, you may be shooting yourself right in the foot; taking them too seriously when it is not warranted can just as easily lead to problems. The bottom line is you have to think about every situation and decide if the differences at hand are relevant to the problems and issues at hand. The answer, however, is not to declare that observing differences is "essentialism."

Albert Einstein was not the "equal" of any random Down's syndrome child you care to pick. And why? Bloody biology, that's why. Likewise, women are not and never will be, barring genetic manipulation, "the same" as men. The expectation that they should be is absolutely ludicrous. This does not rule out any particular role or capability; what it says is that the fit to a particular cognitive, physical, emotional, or artistic target is going to be different between men and women because of biological differences. This, in turn, should encourage us to consider every situation as a unique challenge to meet it with the best fit we can. Not to cleave to some politically correct but scientifically bewildered mode of thinking.

To which, of course, we can add environmental influences from nutrition to parenting and schooling. The very concept that people are, or even could be, "the same" is just plain medieval.

There's nothing like politically correct psychobabble to blind us to reality.

Re:Why is Creationism bad?

[Bassman59]

"So how about it? Why is Creationism so bad?"

Creationism teaches that the Bible is the literal Truth, and as such the world was literally created in six days, and it was created about 6,000 years ago. And it gets nuttier from there.

The problem with the Bible, especially the Gospels, is that it offers different, sometimes contradictory tellings of the same story. It's the Rashomon effect. So, if the Bible offers so many contradictions, then how can it be claimed as the One Truth?

Re:when will you eventually understand?

[symphara]

When will you scientists and "scientists" eventually understand that ID advocates are usually not against science. The conscious among them (yes, there are) are only against calling any unproven (e.g. Darwin's with all its patches and make-ups) theory a "fact".

The theory of evolution is exactly what it says on the tin, i.e. a theory. Nobody said it's the absolute truth, but it's the best we have.

You and ID supporters hang tightly on this word, mistakenly believing that if it's only a "theory" it has as much truth as any other solution we could throw at the problem - for example divine intervention, intelligent design, magic.

However, while it's true that this is a "theory", it's pretty well - and scientifically - documented. The fact that it's imprecise and cannot explain everything doesn't make it any less scientific or true. Physics, for example, is somewhat in the same boat - it cannot explain everything. Classical mechanics (Newtonian physics) is still taught in schools - it's imprecise and has holes, but it doesn't make it less of a science.

If I let go a small object out of my hand it will fall to the floor. I can believe it's God Himself who moved that object, or I could believe in something called "gravity".

You can choose magic, or whatever else you want - don't get so upset when others believe in rational explanations.

P.S. A deep, unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something - as someone has said...

Challenging the status quo has a lot of merit and can indeed produce original results, no doubt. However as soon as we replace reasoning with faith science no longer applies to the topic at hand.

Darwin Exhibit Sponsor?

[Bassman59]

I'm really suprised that Apple isn't a sponsor of the Darwin exhibit, seeing as how Darwin is the basis of OS X and all ...

Yes, they are challenging scientific understanding

[Kelson]

I've posted this before, in one of the threads a few weeks ago, but there was an article in American Scientist about Intelligent Design that looks at the larger picture. A key bit is this:

Intelligent Design is part of a calculated strategy that [founder Phillip] Johnson calls the "Wedge," referring to the tool used to split a solid object--in this case, the cornerstone of biological science. According to a document that appeared on the Discovery Institute's Web site in 1999, the goal of this plan is "nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies." The document also makes sweeping, inaccurate claims such as "new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature." This statement is pure propaganda. (The document can still be found on the Discovery Institute's Web site by searching for "wedge," although it is now prefaced by 12 pages of insistent justification.) [Emphasis added]

Evolution is just the beginning, folks. This is about replacing science with religion.

Which companies?

[fishbowl]

I'd like to let them know that by "not taking sides", they've actually taken the side of the Creationists, by acknowledging that there is some validity to the debate.

Re:Yet so-called scientists "believe" in theories.

[idsofmarch]

This is easily one of the dumbest 'smart' sounding posts I've ever read. First, you manage to reduce everything down to either literalists or rock-worshipers. Then, you mention mechanical and lifeless scientific inquiries (as opposed to organic and vociferous) which just makes me bullshit detector go *beep*beep*beep. The best is the little flourish of math, like a magicians smoke, trying to make you appear as one thing while you're doing another. Then, finally you show your stripes mentioning your belief.

But, my favorite is the last line: As for myself, I trust the God in the bible much more than I'll trust any group of scientists alive today.

You believe the obscure ramblings of desert tribesmen, as transcribed through the Romans and various medieval zealots, over the sincere--if sometimes flawed--explorations of scientists? Really?

Well they got a few things right, notably electricity, computational machines, and the other dozen or so failures of science that allowed you to post such a flawed response in the first place.

Re:Know one think, they just follow the crowd

[cqnn]

Simple dislaimer:

  The evidence in support of evolution can be tested and verified using tools
made available thru many other fields of science. We consider most of those
other fields to be "factual" because they have been proven innumerable times
to hold true thru many challenges and experiments.

Since we trust the tools used to build the body of evidence in evolution
are themselves factual in nature, we can honestly say that we have a
number of evolutionary "facts" available that can themselves be used as
tools to further the study of evolutionary theory.

Based on that understanding, unless the kids in question are in a special
honors course, we can honestly say that what is taught in schools as
evolutionary theory is as factually valid as biology, geology, botany,
and chemisty to name just a few.

End Simple disclaimer...

SO to answer your question from above: "Are you prepared to state that
Evolution is fact?", the answer is YES. I am also prepared to state that
there are areas within the field of evolution that have not been fully
explored due to understandable limits on the current state of the other
"tools" we are using to analyze it. That does not mean the other facts
of Evolution are untrue, it means that there are other facts within that
field of science that have yet to be discovered.

If you wish to challenge Evolution as a science, they you must do so by
addressing the existing facts about evolution that are supported by testing
and verification within other fields of science. Or you have to start
challenging those other fields of science as being invalid as tools to
use to support evolutionary ideas as fact.

"but the overall presentation of the "theory" clearly implies that Evolution
is so widely regarded as being consistent with the evidence, that to not
believe that Evolution is actually fact would be, well, unintelligent."

  No, the evidence is so consistent that to not believe that Evolution is
actually a fact is to refuse to believe the science behind it. We have
no problem with people wanting to challenge evolution, but the "Intelligent"
way to do so is to:

(A) Provide new evidence that causes a re-evaluation of existing facts.

(B) Show where the underlying tools are innaccurate, thus causing a
re-evaluation of the conclusions upon which the facts are based.

(C) Show how the conclusions can be changed using other equally valid, or
more valid tools; thus causing a re-evaluation...

You will note that none of those sentences addresses evolution specifically.
Because the basic structure of science requires that you be able to apply the
same thought process to any other field of science as a test.

To do any less would be defined as an unintelligent approach.

Re:Any difference between scientists & fundame

[Tricky Dick Cheney]

The biggest difference? Science can be proven wrong. Science changes it mind when new data conflicts with old. Faith can't be proven wrong. Faith doesn't change. They're not the same. Shouldn't try to be. Faith is the assumption that a creative sentient force drives creation. Science describes that creation and the creative process. If you beleive in God, the science is a look inside God's toolbox. Creationism has to deny physical evidence to make its literal claim. Creationists put Christianity is a bad spot -- insisting it literally true while everything we see around us says it's not. Creationism isn't a "theory" -- there's no evidence to get to a creation theory. It's a belief.

Ask the Xians at your door.

[Belial6]

Last time I asked Johova Witness' at my door whether slavery was inherently wrong, one walked away pissed, and the other said "No".

Good stuff!

[tomrobst]

It's posts like these that bring out the best of Slashdotters. Every time anything even slightly related to Darwin/Christianity/Religion is mentioned you can bet that there's going to be 700+ comments and yet they all remain reasonably intelligent and some good debates - and no comments like

|0053r n00b y0u kn0w n07h1n6 4b0u7 r3|1610n 0r 5c13nc3. 1 ru|3!!!!!

In relation to the topic at hand it seems to me that a large proportion of people study lots of theories/evidence for ID OR evolution and tend to concentrate on one side of the debate. I think most people would be hard pressed to remain impartial and not develop there own views and then, probably without realising it, begin to find more information which backs up the views which they are developing. It seems that what happens then is as people reinforce their own views they tend not to study the other side of the argument as much and try just ask the other party to prove what their saying all the time while putting across the evidence for their side of the argument.

Look through the replies to the post - a lot of them are based on "Prove evolution" and then "Evolution has been proved you prove ID" and then "ID is proved you prove evolution" and so on..

I think there is common ground between ID and evolution and they do not always contradict each other. I'm a Christian but I believe that natural selection has happened and is happening. As many people point out it's often the extremists, who are a minority, who give a bad name to both camps and make it seem like everyone in that camp holds their point of view...

--

Re:Anti-intelligent-design scientists are confused

[symphara]

You're completely missing the point. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Supporters of evolutionism do not say "It's impossible that God or an intelligent being created life or species". They say "it's possible, but we have no proof of it. However, look at these fossils, look at how genes combine etc".

It's very simple really. We could be living in a simulated Matrix-like world. But we have no proof to support that possibility, just like we have no proof to support intelligent design. Therefore I believe this world is real, because it's the easiest explanation, and in evolution, because there's a lot of scientific proof behind it. Doesn't prove everything, but it's better than nothing.

Re:when will you eventually understand?

[silverdr]

The theory of evolution is exactly what it says on the tin, i.e. a theory. Nobody said it's the absolute truth, but it's the best we have.

The voice of sanity... unfortunately there are so many (even on this forum) who call it *fact*, which is pretty close to calling it "the absolute truth", isn't it? I don't choose magic for explanation. I don't hang on the word "theory". I want true, scientific explanations. But my skeptical mind have problems accepting something as fact as long as it is not proven. That reminds me of many "facts" from the history and highly scientific discussions on "the mechanisms, which caused that the Sun at some point started to revolve around the Earth".

Re:Feminized?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

That was/is my point.

so how does society being mostly male dominated (save for a few female dominated societies) demonstrate that women are less competitive? Once the balance swings very far one way or another, it is very difficult to bring it back, so that would seem to have little bearing on competitiveness.

people revert back to the myth that everybody is created equal.

It's not a fact, it's legal doctrine. The actual doctrine is that all are equal before the law. I'm not going to argue that people are different, just that they deserve equal treatment.

I have noticed in my behavior and that of many other males, that we are being less like men, and that is simply unnatural.

Based on your limited experience and preconceptions of gender roles, I suppose so, but the fact remains that most of these gender roles are socially imposed. Unnatural doesn't really apply to something like that.

Some tidbits from outside the US

[Mentorix]

I've got to admit I find this all a bit worrying and sad at the same time. There's quite a few devout christians in Europe where I live, and let me tell you something, most of them know that you shouldn't try to compare religion and science next to each other. Both have their own expertise. The religiously inclined over here know how science works and what the scientific method does. The vast majority knows that evolution is a valuable contribution to human knowledge and it is simply a reality thats has allowed us to make progress in a vast amount of scientific fields of study, it makes predictions that are falsifiable and allow us to achieve great things. There's simply no better explanation available that scientists can work with. Stop trying to debunk it in public forums and for crying out loud, if you're serious about it, publish a freakin' paper in a peer reviewed scientific publication to challenge evolution instead of coming up with misinformed or distorted excuses and oneliners.

Religion has a place in society for the people that want to spend their lives serving their god or gods and thats fine, all kinds of faiths have had a chance for over 100 years to come up with a usable scientific explanation and they never have, because they don't deal in science, they deal with religion.

Please, don't mix them up or try to bring your favorite religion into the picture to explain things that are perfectly handled by science. Not only are you hurting science for dragging it into a mud slinging contest that really no scientist is interested in. But you are hurting your fellow citizens, not everyone believes in your god, not in Europe, not in the US. To postulate that your god has had a definite hand in creation of this planet and the life on and using very poor science to back it up is insulting to your own religion but also to the people of other faiths. Leave science alone, and keep your religion in your churches and the walls of your own home and possibly your *private* schools.

Remember that people who aren't religious or have a different religion are supposed to have equal rights as the people practicing the most popular religion. That means for one thing, that trying to sneak creationism into science classes makes you very very unpopular and is rightfully so considered extremely insulting to people of different faiths, no faiths and scientists together.

It would look so much better on a lot of christians in the US if they would just sit back and try to see who's agenda they are pushing here and what they think they'll get out of it. I can assure you, if things like schoolboards sneaking in creationism during science class continues, the laughter from the rest of the world will get so loud you will be able to hear it in your prescious heartland pretty soon.

As a last tip for the people trying to "debunk" the scientific method, please read this alinea here: http://www.benben.com.com/. And just let it sink in, please.

Re:Evolution is Theory After All

[ichigo 2.0]

During the same time, our predators were getting faster and stronger and we were getting....smarter???

Evolution doesn't make species faster, stronger, smarter etc. Evolution is about adapting to your environment. Evolution could also make a species become slower, less intelligent and weaker; anything that helps a species thrive in it's environment. It's not even implausible to imagine a species evolving back to single-celled organisms, though this would take a insanely long time, and would need the environment to gradually shift to favoring single-celled organisms.

Domestication is not evolution. We have domesticated cattle, not caused a genetic mutation that makes them different from previous generations. Close and distant relatives of the domesticated cow continue to survive in the wild, human intervention or not. Buffalo roamed the plains of North America for millenia before humans with no problems.

Breeding is a form of evolution, but much faster, because of active evolutionary pressure instead of passive (unwanted genetic variations are destroyed instead of just having a tougher time surviving). Not sure why you think buffaloes prove that domesticated cattle hasn't evolved, they're two separate species?

For me personally though, the best evidence of evolution is my cat from a decade back. It had a very short tail, and small tufts of hair at the tips of its ears. I'm guessing it had a normally dormant gene from an ancestor cats share with the Lynx.

Socially Imposed Gender Roles

[lostraven]

I have noticed in my behavior and that of many other males, that we are being less like men, and that is simply unnatural.
 
Based on your limited experience and preconceptions of gender roles, I suppose so, but the fact remains that most of these gender roles are socially imposed. Unnatural doesn't really apply to something like that.

And this was going to be my point earlier; however, I wanted to get an explanation
of Hackstraw's statement before debating. It's a solid fact that gender roles are often
imposed by society. After all, it's easier and more "kind" for a family to have their
baby boy wearing blue than pink. It's easier and more "kind" to encourage their daughter
to engage in tasks that are passively home-based rather than actively political-based.
If parents encourage activities that are streamline, at least their son or daughter won't
have to suffer through humiliation growing up! I can't speak for every person that's
felt like an outcast because they broke away from socially "accepted" standards. I would
venture to say, though, that I'd rather have my parent's support of my "non-standard" gender
practices while growing up rather than being forced to fit social standard.

If one is a conservative and wishes to stick to old standard, I won't stop you. Until
people all over realize that the social definition of gender is truly blurred, they
will continue to enforce social standards, whether it's through the raising of their
children or by laughing at and/or beating up a male because he's wearing a skirt.

China

[katharsis83]

"Name any society that has survived more than 4000 years ever.

I assume what you mean by 'society' is not an ethnic group but a kind of recognisable contiguous social formation."

Chinese society, while not neccesarily having survived 4000 years (evidence of the Xia Dynasty is only present from Zhou era writings - physical evidence remains elusive), does have a solid foundation of ~3000 years. The Zhou dynasty from late 10th century BC heavily influences modern Chinese society, and is considered by many to be the defining character of China. The basis of much modern Chinese philosophy/thought began with the Confucian set of ethics written during the subsequent Warring States period. While the cycle of dynastic rise/fall and foreign invasions did have a great deal of impact on Chinese culture, the Chinese of today do not consider themselves a seperate people from those that lived in the Zhou, which is enough for me to consider it as one society. One example of this is the classic, "Romance of the Three Kingdoms," which was writtenmuch later about the Warring States period (~5th century); the contents of the book continue to play heavily in modern Chinese diplomacy and thinking.

Evolution and ID theory

[l00k]

Bird flu: Doesn't exist at the moment in a form that can be passed from human to human. The fear is the virus will mutate to gain this ability.

Poodles: Weren't around at the beginning of time, and now they are. Most other breeds of dogs we see on the street are the same. Many of the varieties of flowers in your garden likewise came into existance in recordable history, some within the past 50 years.

Can I reduce the argument against evolution to something as flippant as likening it to refuting the existance of poodles?

On ID theory, it seems like very little new ground is uncovered than was in William Paley's teleological Watchmaker analogy http://members.aol.com/plweiss1/paley.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy of 1802, and of William Derham's of 1696.

Re:Feminized?

[PsiPsiStar]

"Western society is getting so feminized"
Women and men are different. I know that is not a popular opinion, but the boobies and the having kids thing kinda comes to mind.

Yeah, physically men and women are different. Noone's disputing that. Noone sane anyways.

But if you think that nurturing kids is equivalent to being female, why are more people opting to go without kids? Why do more men feel they don't have to get married to a girl if she gets pregnant? It seems like society has been becoming more selfish, not more nurturing. The whole feminist movement aimed to allow women to take on traditionally male roles.

Aren't the traits that you describe; authoritairanism, desire to dominate, all linked in with racism? Maybe going too far in that direction is a bad thing. If we've moved away from it, then yay for us.

Western society is getting more like the emotional and nurturing side. Like the "high self esteem" plan vs doing something to feel good about yourself.

Is this really a male-female dichotomy?

I'm glad you didn't jump to conclusions. In fact, many of us "nerds" are more on the female side of things in that we want everybody to win

Too much testosterone is not good for business. Executives tend to have lower testosterone than people in their age group, IIRC. The people with the highest levels of testosterone tend to be in prison. Of course, older people are more likely to be executives and younger people are more likely to be in prison, but still...

Re:I think people really mess these two argument u

[GaryPatterson]

There are several fossils linking small dinosaurs with birds. You won't ever find a monkey turning into a bird though - they've got the wrong bones. Maybe a tiny, light monkey could evolve first.

You want a monkey that'll fly? Not going to happen with the current crop. What about a monkey that learned to walk upright and made a complex civilisation? Got good records there, but still no perfect fossil line.

You could look at the evolution of whales from mammals not unlike dogs. Lots of fossils there too.

The problem with a perfect fossil record is that bones don't last so well. Only ones that are fossilised last more than a few thousand years, and there are few of those that are found.

As to the Big Bang theory - the theory is that time itself was produced from the event. Asking what happened before it isn't a real question, because there was no time for it to happen 'in.' It's hard to think about, but there's no reason why such complex issues should make sense to us without study.

After the event, matter coalesced out of the energy, as did the fundamental forces of the Universe. There are good theories describing how that occurred as well.

Creationism is more concerned with the "Why" than the "How", which is where Science comes in. The problem we have is when a Creationist states how things occurred, which inevitably conflicts with Science at some point.

Re:Why is Creationism bad?

[kirkjobsluder]

Well, the biggest problem is that it does not open many doors for inquiry. Let's look at a much less contraversial theory: plate techtonics. Creationism doesn't provide much in the way of an explanation. Why is Mt. Everest tall? God works in mysterious ways. Why are ocean trenches deep? God works in mysterious ways. Why does Japan have volcanos? God works in mysterious ways.

Plate techtonics as a theory not only explains some if the more interesting features of the planet, but it also provides a framework for further questions. Scientists in general love unanswered questions because unanswered questions can be parlayed into grant funding.

Which BTW. The creation of the Earth has squat to do with Evolution.

Re:Evolution is Theory After All

[Alsee]

And Einstein was smart enough to label his theories as "theories".

If you want to call Newton's theory of gravity a theory, and Einstein's theory of relativity a theory, and Darwin's theory a evolution a theory, fine.

And you can use absolutely any language you like when teaching them in highschool science class. Just don't try to single one of them out for special discrimination. If you want stupid-ass stickers in biology text books statign that evolution is Just A Theory, fine. But if you do then you damn well bette be placing the exact same stickers WARNING students that gravity is Just A Theory too. And you also better include a sticker warning students that chemistry's theory of atoms and theory of elements are Just Theories as well. And electricity and electrons are Just a Theories as well.

The Roman and Egyptian civilizations are theories too.

And the American Civil War is Just a Theory. Nobody alive actually saw it happen. It is just the best theory he have to explain the reality we currently observe.

The supporters of the theory of evolution just want to skip all that nasty business of work and evidence and got straight from theory to established fact practically overnight.

Why?

Evolution has been supported by staggering quantities of conclusive evidence for damn near ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY FSCKING YEARS.

A one hundred and fifty year night. Yes, it was very very dark for a very very long time.

In fact in the last few decades with genetic analysis the evidence conculsively supporting evolution has turned into an unending flood.

It's those atheist relativity fanatics that are trying straight from theory to established fact practically overnight. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity has been around less than 90 years.

-

Not Correct for Europe

[aepervius]

Genetic Engineering : What people find negative is that it is NOT indicated on the product if this was made using genetically engineered raw mateerial or not. They are not against science. They are against not being told as to let them make their own choice. Look, there is a lot of white paper around saying the same things : the study made by FIRMS which promote genetic engineerings of crop/soja are lacking in length and depth of impact. So, some consumer want to avoid those product out of ideology (I wanna eat only natural stuff) and other due to those white paper (my own reason and of that other people I know albeit of. Not the majority but a very good procent. We still remmember some major fuck up from private firm study). But the bottom line is that it is not indicated in product composition and this WHY there had been a big backlash.

Personally whether the reason was correct or only ideological or even dumb fear on our side, THE CHOICE should still be left with us whether we want to buy a product or not. But effectively firm did not want to leave us that choice by avoiding putting in the product composition the truth of the origin of their crops/soja... You know the adage. A free market exist only if the consumer is informed.

Re:No science in support of ID...I beg to differ..

[symphara]

I say that whoever wrote it doesn't understand entropy or thermodynamics in general.