Slashdot Mirror
Evolution Named Scientific Achievement of 2005
lazy_hp writes "The BBC reports that research into evolution's inner working has been named rtop science achievement of 2005 From the article: 'The prestigious US journal Science publishes its top 10 list of major endeavours at the end of each year. The number one spot was awarded jointly to several studies that illuminated the intricate workings of evolution. The announcement comes in the same week that a US court banned the teaching of intelligent design in classrooms.'"
I am not surprised that this journal would make this postulation. Its not science, its politics.
:)
The hypocrasy is astounding and goes to prove the reason and need for the debate and teaching of the creationism origins scientific view.
Although I guess an evolutionary view of origins naturally leads to a disrespect and hatred for others of opposing views, calling them idiots and retards because they believe that science proves that evolution DID NOT happen and even can't happen because it is in itself anti-scientific is hypcritical in the highest.
The scientist that have studied long and hard and thought through the physics, biology, mathematics, geology etc. have very powerful reasons to doubt the evolution and naturalistic theories of origins as they are non-scientific in many cases.
Some of the biggest reasons are:
1) life never comes from non-life although there were earlier scientists who believed that maggots appeared from nowhere on rotting meat. This theory is based on non-science err nonsense either works.
2) explosions don't bring order...although one naturalistic-scientist boldly stated, " as a matter of fact, given enough time, a tornado passing through a junkyard could assemble a working Beoing 747"
3) Mutations occur but almost always bring harm and NEVER add new information to a genetic chain. New information is required for one species to change or evolve into another and this does not occur in observable nature anywhere. Infact, DNA which was discovered after the evolution theory is a huge slap in the face to evolution and a dramatic proof of intelligent design.
4) Science itself was vastly vived by a creationist perspective. The creation around us suggests a Creator that is why it is called creation. And the God of Creation created us in His image to create, explore, examine, study, analyze, record, name, etc. which is why us humans are having this whole debate on this thing we created called the world-wide-web in the first place.
These are just a few of the reasons why creationism is a more excellent science than the blind faith of an evoltuionary naturalist viewpoint. Evolutionists can't take the heat which is why they get so angry at opposing views. Step back folks and think for yourselves, study both sides and you will begin to change your mind, its inevitable because reason will hold out where it is free to exist.!!
PS Merry Christmas
Look who's talking about liberty and control. The courts effectively trampled on liberty with this latest decision. All that the government must do is maintain neutrality, not favoring one view over another. Thus, if both evolution and ID are taught, neutrality is maintained. If ID is banned simply because it is religious, neutrality has been violated. If evolution is banned only because it is religious, neutrality has likewise been violated.
I said "effectively trampled on", because ID was rejected for being unscientific in this particular case. That is the fault of the defense, and I can't actually fault the judge on that count, from what I've heard at least. However, if ID ever gets a decent legal and scientific team on its side, we should make some headway. Notice I said headway, since we're the ones who are trying to open people's minds to a theory that more reliably accounts for the evidence we see than evolution does. The Inquisitors were charged with snuffing out dissenting voices, and actually murdered many Bible believers, so your analogy is certainly backwards.
Normally I stay away from debating the evidence for literal Biblical Creationism (the only reasonable strain of ID), but this is an exceptional circumstance, since so many voices have challenged the very fact that Creationism is a falsifiable scientific theory at all.
Literal Creationism has at least four main tenets:
- the earth is young, probably around 6000 years old
- God created all "kinds" of animals within 6 evening-morning days (fish vs. birds vs. land mammals vs. humans, etc.)
- the earth was devastated by a global flood early in its history
- all humans descended from a single couple known in the English Bible as Adam and Eve
If it could be shown that any one of these propositions does not hold, then Biblical creationism would crumble. The fact that they are extraordinarily difficult to challenge certainly does not mean that creationism is not a scientific theory. Furthermore, all of the evidence we have ever uncovered and understand quite well supports these propositions. Note that these observations are the exact same observations used by evolutionists, just interpreted according to a different framework.
In fact, Biblical creationism is such a superior framework that I eagerly anticipate the day when macroevolution is finally put on trial for being unscientific in comparison and barred from classrooms on that basis and that basis alone. Both evolutionists and creationists have difficulty explaining many parts of their theories and demand patience, but the relative magnitudes of uncertainty between the two theories are hardly worth comparing.
If you want to learn more about specific pieces of the evidence, you can buy books and read papers from any number of creation institutes, it's not worth discussing them here as I've done so many times before.
Check out the first article on this page: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/Abs tracts42-2.htm (peer reviewed)
I know I will take a mega-karma hit for this, but I am not affraid to speak my mind.
Macro evolution still has not been proven. All they have done is take two distinct set of bones and say one came before the other. They do not have any intermediate stages or anything. To believe in evolution you must believe that life came from nothing at all with out any design. Everything about the world around us screams that it was designed, and is a machine. A machine which we keep on breaking. Only teaching evolution limits how we think about the world around us, and can keep us from finding discoveries.
Look at stem cell research. A lot of people in the scientific community, and here on slashdot, were singing (and worshiping, at the altar of embrionic stem cell research). You looked down on those who were against it. Those who were against it and said there were other lines of stem cell research that were more promising. All the recent stem cell advances have been in non-embrionic stem cell research.
My point is this, the draconian, pig-headed scientists who worshiper evolution may not be right. They refuse to see even the smallest problems in evolution. The follow it blindly like a religion, and for some it is safe to say it is their religion above all else. Even when pressed with obvious problems (such as how life began), the deeper you dig they eventually have to admit they don't know. It is time scientist take an open mind and start admitting they could be wrong.
ID will not go away. There are scientists who believe in it, and the more it shows up in court, the more attention it will bring. In the long run, hopefully, the scientists who think it is worth looking into, and believe in it (not for religous reasons), will come out into the open and start speaking up. Then maybe you pig-head evolution worshipers might open your minds. Bring back competing ideas in science.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
As a parent (in Kansas, no less), I can tell you that evolution is usually not taught as theory, but as fact.
Maybe that's for the simple basic obvious reason that it is a 100% absolute fact.
Don't believe it? Need proof?
Ever seen a dog? A seedless watermelon?
There you go. absolute positive undeniable proof that evolution is a fact.
The fact that you and the rest of the ignorant dipshits like you who are pushing this garbage clearly don't have a clue what these words even mean yet keep blathering on about it menas that you are 100% absolutely an idiotic dipshit.
Sorry to break it to you like that, but as long as you continue to whine about nonsense without even bothering to figure out what the issue is, you will continue to be treated as an idiotic dipshit by *all* decent, sane, rational people.
If you could even tell the difference between evolution (*fact*) and the Theory of Evolution (potential mechanisms by which it occurs) then you would look like you weren't an absolute moron.
You are so pathetic though, that you can't even tell the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.
I'm sure you've been told this many times, but being the ignorant dipshit you are, you refuse to listen and continue to whine like a little bitch about shit you're too stupid to even bother learning about before you condemn it.
So, in conclusion, fuck off. Militantly ignorant morons like you are embarassing our nation and our species.
> I can't help thinking this decision is politically-motivated. Doesn't mean it's not deserved, but it sure is convenient, coming on the heels of the ID court decision.
Take it as a sign that after the Discovery Institute has been pushing their pseudoscience in the public arena for a decade, scientists are finally starting to push back.
It would be better if they didn't need to, but they do, so IMO this is a good sign.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade