Utah Votes 'No' to Darwin's Critics

NewbieV writes "An article in Tuesday's New York Times notes that proposed legislation which would have 'stress[ed] that not all scientists agree on which theory regarding the origins of life, or the origins or present state of the human race, is correct;' has failed by a 46-28 vote in a Republican-controlled state House of Representatives."

Comments

Good Riddance To Yet More Bad Rubbish

[TripMaster Monkey]

Much more information regarding this decision can be found in this Salt Lake Tribune article, including many memorable quotes from the legislators involved.

From TFA:

...religion infused the debate on SB96 from the beginning. [Senator Chris] Buttars forwarded the proposal because he insisted many evolution lessons contradict religious instruction. He is disgusted by the idea that humans evolved from what he calls a "lower species."

Also from TFA (this one is priceless):

"There are a number of influential legislators who believe you evolved from an ape," Buttars said following the vote. "I didn't."

Kudos to the Utah House of Representatives for giving this bill (as well as Senator Buttars himself) the treatment they both so richly deserve.

Re:Good Riddance To Yet More Bad Rubbish

[MonkeyDluffy]

"There are a number of influential legislators who believe you evolved from an ape," Buttars said following the vote. "I didn't."

I don't the apes would want to claim Buttars as a descendant, either.

Re:Good Riddance To Yet More Bad Rubbish

[IdleTime]

And if he wants to look at superior beeings, look to cockroaches, sharks and crocodiles. They have outlived almost every other spieces on the planet.

Re:Good Riddance To Yet More Bad Rubbish

[Momo_CCCP]

Once again some people are deforming the Evolution theory to make their point.
The theory doesn't say man evolved from the ape but that man and ape once had a _common ancestor_. But I guess we can't expect everybody to be well-informed, even those who hold the power to decide...

*sigh*

Re:Good Riddance To Yet More Bad Rubbish

[Smidge204]

I like this one better:

"Frankly I am not interested in teaching our kids what is in fact based solely on scientific inferences," [James Ferrin] said.

Something tells me he has no problems teaching kids "facts" based solely on open interpretation of 3000+ year old texts, though.
=Smidge=

Re:Good Riddance To Yet More Bad Rubbish

[Harry Coin]

However, "evolution" with respect to the origin of life is a theory.

Evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life. Evolution is the fact that organisms reproduce, mutate, and change. Evolution by natural selection is an important biological theory that is widely midunderstood. Abiogenesis is the theory that life on earth came from primordial ooze, and it has a lot less evidence for it than does evolution. This does not mean that is it neccessarily incorrect.

Of course, many theists just lump them all together because they are either confused or deceptive.

Evolution/IEducation

[ebob9]

Yknow, this makes me want to vent about the whole "Intellegent Design" argument.

Whether teaching Evolution, "Intellegent Design", or this Utah "4 out of 5 Dentists agree" crap, the problem is not the teaching of these theories. The key problem is teaching children to question conventional wisdom. Kids need to be taught to always question what they know. Kids need to know what your teacher teaches you is what everyone "thinks" to be right at the moment, but who knows what the future will bring. If you're going to lobby gangbusters to teach the kids of today something, teach them to evaluate what they are taught themselves. The world is many shades of grey, not black and white.

P.S. - I always slept through English class

Re:Evolution/IEducation

[MightyMartian]

Before one is taught to measure conventional wisdom (whatever that means), ought children not be taught the scientific method properly, and thus can be able to grasp why the massive and overwhelming number of scientists (including ID superstar Michael Behe) accept evolution and common descent? Shouldn't they also be taught a bit of basic logic, so that when liars like the Discovery Institute try to foist arguments of incredulity and God-of-the-gaps style claims that children can recognize the invalidity of trying to pierce a scientific theory by those means?

Just sitting here over the last few months and seeing the appalling ignorance of so many, right down to not even understanding what science is, it seems to me that education's first role, particularly in those post-Industrial world, is to give a good grounding in science, because, believe it or not, incredulity from ignorance is meaningless.

Re:Evolution/IEducation

[willy_me]

On the other hand you're using Wikipedia for definitions- which is a problem in and of itself since Wikipedia is just a collection of shared ignorance.

There is nothing wrong with using Wikipedia for definitions. Facts, ya, that can be a problem but definitions are fine. The whole point of having a term defined is so that everyone can agree on it's meaning. So when I posted the definition of evolution, I was referring to the accepted meaning of the term. If it means something else to you then that's OK, but you should assume that the definition accurately describes what it means to other people. If you want to argue about the definition, provide references.

Thus the complaint still stands- evolution and thories like it are proof by consensus, which is a logical fallacy

Every single accepted theory is a proof by consensus because nothing can ever be proven correct for certain. Will gravity stop working tomorrow? Possibly. Who really knows. We have models that have been shown to be very accurate at predicting the future but we can't assume they always will be. A good theory can be proven false quite easily, but can never be proven correct. Only after years of tests by multiple scientists where the data always fits with the theory can a theory actually be accepted by the scientific community. Note that it is never proven, just accepted by consensus.

Willy

Re:Evolution/IEducation

[secondbase]

They should absolutely be taught to question scientific theories. The problem is that all these bills specifically target questioning evolution. In fact, that's one of the reasons the bills fail, because the courts aren't stupid: they know that it's evolution that gets certain groups unhappy. How about a bill to teach kids that magnetism is only a theory?

Allow me to be the first to say...

[camusflage]

THANK GOD! :)

saints preserve us

[ExE122]

I found an article that talks more about why Utah doesn't get up in arms about evolution. Here's a part of it:

Professor Duane Jeffery, a professor of biology at Brigham Young University, estimates that "probably 90 percent of people who are LDS think the church is against evolution. But they don't get upset about it being taught in public schools." The reason, he says, is the church seminary system, which provides junior high and high school students with a class period of religious instruction during school hours. "Most parents feel their religion is being take care of in seminary," Jeffery says. Conservative gadfly Gayle Ruzicka, president of the Utah Eagle Forum, sees it this way: "Utah's children, for the most part are taught by their parents that evolution is not correct science. The parents feel more control because they know they're teaching their children the truth at home." That truth, she says, is that "you are a child of God," a phrase that Mormons learn from the time they can talk, she says. "It's a year or two of learning about evolution vs. a lifetime of hearing that you are a child of God. Evolution just doesn't win out."

It looks like Utah doesn't feel threatened by teaching evolution because they have faith in what they believe (and what they learn in the seminary). I'd say that's a step in the right direction for seperation of church and state... that is assuming that these semenary classes aren't mandated.

Re:saints preserve us

[lexbaby]

FYI: Mormon Seminary is "Release Time" from High School. The school sees it as the student isn't at the school for that period. This is true because the Seminary in on church property near the school, NOT on school property. Outside of Utah and some surounding areas, Seminary is taught early before school starts. Usually at a church or home of the instructor.

It is a good system. Let the schools teach science, let church teach faith, and let each individual figure it out for themselves.

Re:saints preserve us

[geoffspear]

This is precisely the best sort of argument against letting public schools teach children religion.

"How do you feel about having your child instructed in what's 'true' by a [Mormon/Muslim/Catholic/Protestant/Jew/Satanist] teacher?"

Smart religious people obviously would want their religion taught to their kids by their church, not by a public school. It's really only people who irrationally assume that the public school would be teaching just their religion and no one else's that are in favor of stuff like this.

Much like how people who irrationally think that their favorite political party will always be in power are in favor of unlimited government power.

Re:saints preserve us

[SquadBoy]

As others have said it isn't mandated. I never did, even though I was raised devout Mormon, mostly because I wanted to pack in extra coursework and my parents felt that I read/studied enough on my own that it didn't matter. (Little did they know. But that's another story) I had a good friend who's parents were devout Catholic and, although few people know it, they were able to send her to "release time" at a Catholic class. So yes it's very much a open thing. It was, of course, designed that way so that there could be no real credible challanges to it. But I see this as a good thing.

Outside of Utah local Mormon congregations will often have the same classes in the mornings before school.

Re:saints preserve us

[geoffspear]

I'm an atheist, and I think pretty much all religious belief is inherently irrational.

And I agree, GP is definitely flamebait. And remarkably stupid.

There have been lots of very smart people who have held religious beliefs. There are also lots of very smart people who aren't religious, but who hold other irrational beliefs. I daresay you won't find a single human anywhere who doesn't have at least some kind of irrational beliefs or behavior patterns. Unless GP poster is a nihilist who rejects calling anyone at all "smart", it's hard to argue that singling out one group is anything but Flamebait.

Re:saints preserve us

[Fulcrum of Evil]

"How do you feel about having your child instructed in what's 'true' by a [Mormon/Muslim/Catholic/Protestant/Jew/Satanist] teacher?"

Sure, as long as he's not Episcopalean.

I'm not really surprised

[Dark Paladin]

As a Mormon myself (but not raised in Utah, so I'm usually considered cool), I'm not surprised. Most LDS members that I know kind of shrug their shoulders at the whole "intelligent design" thing. Sure, we believe God had something to do with it, but we're a) not going to force it down someone else's throat, based on the 11th article of Faith:

11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

So the idea of making up a law saying "here's how it is, suckers! Believe this way!" is against the typical belief of "separation of church and state". (Granted, Utah is not a shining example of this all the time - see the liquer laws they have, but like I said, I don't live there).

Even if we believe that God had a hand in it, there's a lot of individual belief in how it happens. Was "Garden of Eden" a fable of sorts for early Isrealites since they wouldn't get "Well, God started the universe from the vacuum using a 20 dimensional algorithm that would solidify into 3 stable dimensions of space, 1 of time, and gravity with values X" - or was there a "snap of the fingers"? Some church authorities have given their opinions on it, but I've never seen an official "it was this and no other".

I'm more of a "what does it really matter in the grand scheme of things" anyway. i don't think God's going to ask me what I thought about "intelligent design" or "evolution" when I die - he's going to ask me about how I treated my wife, my children, my friends, my enemies, my coworkers, and others. So I believe in evolution - yes, the Darwin version - until a voice on high says something different. And even then, I'll check to make sure somebody didn't slip me some really interesting mushrooms - just in case.

Most of us like science - and yes, I even appreciate the ones that show my religion, like most others, is probably full of it. I just use the "South Park Mormon episode thought" about the whole thing.

Then, there's b) getting voted out of office. Remember the Dover school officials who decided to bring Intelligent Design to their schools - and the next election got voted out? Even in a Mormon state, all an opponent has to do is start up "You're trying to mix church and state? What are you doing?", and there are enough non-Mormons in the state to resonate with that, and enough Mormons who think about Illinois and how the state not doing their job in protecting *all* religions that their dander gets up.

Anyway - good move by the congress, by the majority whip who brought in an amendment that all but killed the bill, and to the folks who voted it down. As the article says - if a super conservative religious state like Utah won't approve it, there's probably hope for the rest of the country.

This is all just my opinion. I could be wrong. And I'm hardly a good example of Mormonism anyway - I tend to say "fuck" too much in company ;).

Re:I'm not really surprised

[bani]

11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Note that this does not grant anyone the right to not worship. It is freedom to religion, not freedom from religion.

Re:I'm not really surprised

[swillden]

You have a moral responsibility not to force your beliefs down your own childs throat.

I think I have a moral responsibility to give my child the benefit of something that has done so much good for my life, and the lives of so many others I know.

In other news

[saskboy]

In other news, Crest has fought off a push to include the following warning on their toothpaste tubes:
Only 9 out of 10 Dentists agree that flouride toothpaste reduce cavities. Since there are dissenting Dentists, you're probably better off gargling with Coke.

Religious Rotgut

[Mekkis]

Admittedly, I'm not surprised that Utah voted against this. For the Mormon Church (virtually indistinguishable from the State of Utah) to throw their lot in with Evangelical Christians would be self-defeating. Perhaps they recognize the idea that the establishment of a "Christian Nation" as the Evangelicals so dearly wish to do would preclude their participation.

Basically the whole 'intelligent design' movement is yet another attack on secularism. For those who embrace this theory, it's not enough for the state to acknowledge the right of people to worship as they see fit and go about teaching science, the state must be forced to operate according to the Evangelicals' interpretation of Biblical law. Whether or not Evangelicals admit it, the vaunted "Christian Nation" they're trying to forge would make second-class citizens of everyone who doesn't subscribe to their interpretation of their religion. This is fine, because according to my observation they want to create a sort of environment where non-Evangelicals are barely tolerated and subjected to a torrent of Bible-thumping and state-sponsored oppression until they convert. I think the Mormons recognize this, and since they're not in the religio-political mainstream insofar as the Religious Right is concerned, they're likely nervous about getting into bed with their main competition.

In short, this gives me hope that some religious, right-wing people recognize the fact that religion and public governance should be kept separate-- even if their motives are based on a level playing field for competition over converts.

Re:Religious Rotgut

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I think that evolution should also be kept out, because it is also metaphysical and non-scientific (neither testable nor observable).

It's been tested. It's been observed. You're either in denial or ignorent.

You see, there is every bit the agenda on the part of evolutionists to take God out of society. I don't want to put God into society, just to let people decide for themselves.

I disagree. I think you do want to put God into society, and you have an agenda to force people to accept that God exists. To prove my theory, I will simple ask you that were you to have children, or if you already have had children, will you/have you instructed them religiously? If the answer is yes then you are a prosyletist.

The point is to stop teaching evolution as a fact, and not to teach complex theories to children who don't know what to do with them.

People around the world try and teach children the mysteries of transubstatiation, or ressurection, or eternity or some other such rubbish. These are, at the best of times, highly advanced intellectual concepts. Children should not be taught these complex theories as they don't know what to do with them. Plus, they aren't even fact, unlike evolution.

The attempts by many Christians to teach ID and creation are not intended to shun science or make second-class citizens out of atheists; it's just a reaction to what many view as being an untruthful, specifically anti-Christian approach.

Yes they are. And atheists are second class citizens. Unlike their religious "peers", their views and practices, no matter how outrageous, are not constitutionally protected. The Christain approach is the untruthful one. The religion is filled with lies, contridictions, falsehoods, evils and hate; yet to proslyetise and indoctrinate it is legally protected.

The truth is, you've been brainwashed by the village shamen or nearest cultural equivilant. Try not to subject your children to the same treatment. You only get so many of them.

Re:Religious Rotgut

[caseih]

It's always possible that "Intellegent Design" doesn't fit with Mormon theology. As a Mormon I can't possibly support this particular ideology of intelligent design, other than the title. Mormons do not believe in an ex-nihilo creation, but rather a more newtonic creation where matter was organized by God. In this framework, (despite what many orthodox Mormons think), there is plenty of room for scientific explainations for how this may have occurred, including evolution. I can say with certainty that the Mormon church does not have a position on evolution itself. The only thing that is taught is simply that there is a relationship between God in heaven and men and women on earth who are his children. That's a pretty broad statement and certainly doesn't have anything to say about how God might have created things, even, say Adam and Eve. So if a Mormon tells you his church doesn't believe in evolution, he's misinformed. This doesn't imply that evolution is taught by the church as doctrine though.

I don't believe this bill dying has anything to do with Evangelicals either, given the fact that Mormons and Evangelicals have a very different undertanding of how things came into existance. It *does* have a lot to do with separation of church and state and not just because of uncomfortable folks who aren't of the LDS (Mormon) faith either. Most LDS people who are involved with politics are very concerned about this and would be just as uncomfortable about a bill pushing some Mormon commandment as a law (unless such a commandment happens to also be a "natural" law, such as murder) as any secular humanist or what have you.

As a Mormon (who also lives in Utah), I would have to say that the overriding principle that is most significant to the LDS faith is the idea of individual freedom to choose how to act and believe, and taking responsibility for such things. I think teaching the scientific method and how to be analytical, and then being taught the current scientific ideas and trends is important to be taught in school. After that you can believe what you want.

Please Stop Posting These

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

OK, this might get modded down, but I feel I have to say this.

It's really not a great idea to post these evolution debate storys. This story will generate a huge amount of comments as the creationists try and blast the boards with their nonsense. And I do not hesitate to call it that. Nonsense. Mod points will be burned, flames will fly, karma will be gained and lost again and again in the same comment.

The creationists are essentially trolls, who are given free reign in these sanctioned stories to start flame wars. I have no doubt that many creantionist comments simply are trolls, looking to start a nice hot flame war. They succeed every time.

It's all a waste. Slashdot is news for nerds. This is really a US centric debate, and quite a lot of the slashdot readership is simply not in any way interested in the current US culture war. Many find it completely perplexing, like a story you'd hear about people somewhere worshipping a kid with a tail. This creation thing is not really a science story and is more a (very US centric) culture and politics issue.

OK. I accept that in some cases, these evolution stories are quite relevant in a science context. But only when the evolution/creation "debate" is not itself core and main extent the story. Postings on the NASA PR's censoring of scientists I do want to hear about. That affected scientists, and was only a result of the evolution/creation "debate". Similarly with fuding cuts due to fallout from the issue.

But stories like these, which are not about science, and are simply about another aspect of a culture/political war going on in the US, do not belong in the science section. There's no science here. There isn't even a victory for science. It's just the outcome of one skirmish between religious groups and secular people in the US.

I accept that this may be an important issue for US slashdotters, but please understand that this is a very, very, very US centric story, that really belongs in the Slashdot politics section, not in the science section and certainly not on the main page.

Hopefully this comment might start a good meta discussion that the editors may take notice of. But more than likely it will simply be lost amid the vast torrent of comments, flames and threads surrounding it.

Re:Please Stop Posting These

[mugnyte]

Dude, your post is a complete mad-lib for each and every topic on Slashdot...or any web site anywhere. If you can't take the heat, click elsewhere.


It's really not a great idea to __[verb1]___ these ___[adj1]_____ stories. This story will generate a huge amount of __[noun1]____ as the ___[collective noun1]______ try and __[verb2]_____ the ___[noun2]_____ with their _[noun3]_______. And I do not hesitate to call it that: ___[noun4]________. ___[plural noun1]____ will be ____[verb3]____, ___[plural noun2]___ will fly, ___[noun5]____ will be gained and lost again and again in the same ___[noun6]_____.


verb1:
adj1:
noun1:
collective noun1:
verb2:
noun2:
noun3:
noun4:
plural noun1:
verb3:
plural noun2:
noun5:
noun6:

Have fun!

True Science Vs. True Religion

[Temujin_12]

Whenever there is a perceived conflict between science and religion you are seeing one of three things:

1- False religion in the face of true science.
2- False science in the face of true religion.
3- False religion in the face of false science.

True science and true religion have the same end goal, the pursuit of truth. They just have different methodologies to go about finding truth.

Re:GO AWAY AC

[saskboy]

TMM posts insightful, and the full spectrum of positively moderatable comments for everyone to enjoy. If you don't like reading him, it's not hard to set him as a Foe, and set foes at a low reading threshold. But you, having not yet evolved from an ape-like species probably didn't realize that was possible. While you're at it, add me as a foe too if you don't like reading my posts.

Next Up, the Disenfranchised Fundamentalists!

[Cranky Weasel]

Something wonderful has happened. We may be on the edge of a new age of enlightenment.

I've discussed evolution versus intelligent design before. I do believe that they do not really have to be enemies. I've said before that evolution does not deny God, or any creator. My complaint has to do with the teaching of intelligent design as a science when it is nothing of the sort. It's religion through and through.

I've also claimed that even many religious organizations don't disbelieve evolution. After all, any microbiology textbook is absolutely stuffed with evidence. The problems come when one tries to reconcile the timeline of the bible with the timeline of nature. A few thousand years, or three billion... they don't quite agree.

I'm absolutely thrilled to say that a large body of clergy has now come out on the side of evolution, and against intelligent design. Warren Eschbach of the Church of the Brethren, a retired pastor and professor at the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Gettysburg, helped sponsor a letter that has been signed by over 10,000 clergy members. I quote from CNN, who quoted the letter:

"We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests."

The following quote, also sourced from the CNN article, was made by Vatican Observatory Director George Coyne:

"The intelligent design movement belittles God. It makes God a designer, an engineer. The God of religious faith is a god of love. He did not design me."

I can't tell you how pleased I am to see so many people of faith acknowledge that science and religion do not have to be enemies. To ignore what mankind is learning is foolhardy, and I believe that a religious body that refuses to acknowledge what science uncovers is doomed.

The existence of evolution does not diminish God. And the existence of God does not diminish evolution.

I sent a link to the CNN article to a friend of mine, and he replied with, "And the sheep lay down with the lions." Interesting. If the religious are the sheep, by laying down with the lions of science are they doomed to never wake up? Or does it simply mean that two traditional enemies are laying down their swords?

I'd like to think the latter is the case. Spirituality is important, whether based in divinity or in something less etheric, and if it can exist side by side with practical knowledge, I think it bodes very well for the future of our species.

Disclaimer - I am NOT religious.

Re:Utah of all places!

[Snap E Tom]

Are you that naive to think the parent's not thinking religion when he's slamming Utah?

Re:Butt-ars?

[fishybell]

Well, listening to the morning radio here one comes to realize that Buttars is pronounced Butters, much akin to the poor chap living in Southpark, CO. He is, of course, not known here for Just the anti-darwin bill, but essentially Every horrible bill that is put before the state legislature. Everything from anti-gay bills to anti-hate crime bills to anti-video games bills all start with, or are strongly supported by, Chris Buttars. If he did not attend, I'd say roughly 50-75% more actual work would get done (note: this of course, would still not be a lot, this is Utah we're talking about).

For more Chris Buttars, please read through his various appearances as a nominee for "Boner of the Day" (morning show, daily moron contest).

Some of his great quotes include:

• "A great deal of my political stands come from my faith. I represent the values that have always been America's morality." - Chris Buttars
• "If you read the homosexual rule book, you'll find their greatest target is your kids." - Chris Buttars
• "I don't think the conservative side of the aisle understands incrementalism and the liberal side does, and that is one way we got beat." - Chris Buttars
• "The [government] has become totally hostile to moral and religious ideals." - Chris Buttars
• "They're everywhere. They're getting into everything, The homosexual community is going to undermine society." - Chris Buttars

Ape-descended legislators...

[Tackhead]

> > There are a number of influential legislators who believe you evolved from an ape," Buttars said following the vote. "I didn't."
>
> I don't the apes would want to claim Buttars as a descendant, either.

Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western United States lies a small unregarded salt pond. Adjacent to this at a distance of roughly ninety-eight is an utterly insignificant little state whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think creationism is a pretty neat idea.

> > "Rep. Stephen Urquhart, R-St. George, led the charge to defeat the bill, saying he didn't understand how science contradicted faith." Urquhart successfully gutted the bill, leaving only one bland sentence that read: "The State Board of Education shall establish curriculum requirements relating to scientific instruction." Then the House defeated even that as a way of stopping the Senate from reviving the issue.

In deference to one million years of human evolution, Rep. Urquhart did not try to pick fleas off Senator Buttars. Utahns are not proud of their ancestry and never invite them around for dinner.

/with apologies to Douglas Adams.

Thank God!

[rdmiller3]

Thank God they voted this down.

(Heheheh. Couldn't resist.)

I am an atheist.
I am an atheist!
God knows, I am an ATHEIST!!
-- Nikita Khrushchev

Re:That's a heckuva thing to vote over.

[Chemicalscum]

Darwinism, when taken on itself, says the universe spontaniously came into existance for no reason whatsoever at all and that mankinds choices lead to his evolution,

Idiot - you have no idea what Darwinism is, or what modern evolutionary theory is for that matter.

Read The Origin of the Species and then come back and post. I have and therefore have a right to comment on Darwinism.

Get a clue.

Re:About Foe lists...

[Seedy2]

Censorship is preventing OTHER people from reading stuff you don't agree with.

Re:Enough Tolerance

[grammar fascist]

How many Utah public schools teach cosmology and biology according to Mormon, not scientific, principles?

None, as far as I know. Often our morality and thus school rules and such are informed by religious principles, but never science.

As someone else pointed out, BYU, the only private Mormon university, teaches evolution in biology class. The public schools do the same.

Your signature is interesting.

[Jerk City Troll]

“Moral relativism” seeks to eliminate all meaningful definitions of “morality”.

“Moral relativism” is a redundant term. All morals are intrinsically relative to the people, times, and places from which they originate. Thousands of years ago, it used to be that stoning women to death for getting raped was moral, while today, that is no longer the case. It also used to be moral to have slaves, but that too was based on whether you lived in the north or the south. People define morality, not absolutes. And because people are transient, morals will come and go, and evolve.

Also, it is funny that you say “moral relativism” eliminates definitions of morality. You used the plural form of “definition” thus indicating you think that there are multiple definitions of morality in the first place. I could not agree more.

Re:Utah of all places!

[LoverOfJoy]

I don't think it was about protecting the minority. I think the majority voted against it in part because the majority educated Utahns would be against it. The LDS church isn't as anti-evolution as you might think.

Re:Enough Tolerance

[jscharla]

But they are abundantly demonstrated. You just have to look at geologic fossil records from around the world to see evolution and speciation in action. Those geologic records are recorded history - sure, they weren't written by humans but I think I'd have to give mother nature the advantage over humans when it comes to recording things without bias.

There seems to be confusion here over what a 'theory' is. Just because it's a theory doesn't mean that it's correct. It means that it is the best answer that we have been able to come up with to explain something. The biggest key to any theory is that it must be dis-provable. This is where ID fails to fall into the realm of science whereas evolution does. You want to disprove evolution? Easy - go find the fossillized remains of a human in the Jurrasic. You want to disprove ID? Impossible, unless you can get the almighty to appear before me and tell me personally that he didn't do it or maybe some alien species that has been recording our past.

Easy question

[Tony]

Why hasn't a new age of enlightenment kicked in?

Because most people are stupid?

What do I win?

Smartass comments aside, I think it's because there's just too much knowledge. It's painful trying to understand complex ideas, and the world is full of complex ideas. It's much simpler to embrace a simple viewpoint, one which will give you the answers you seek without requiring thought.

Consider simple moral questions. In the real world, moral judgements are sometimes difficult. By embracing a set of pre-written moral standards and applying them uncritically, life becomes much easier. "Homosexuality is wrong," and "Anyone who claims to believe in Jesus is right," or "The invisible hand of the market will make everything right!" Shades of grey are transformed instantly into wonderful black-and-white just by running it through your Jesus filter (or your Allah filter, or your Ayn Rand filter, or... you get the point).

I doubt we'll ever see a true age of enlightenment.

Re:Utah of all places!

[whitehatlurker]

Here's an interesting comment on this point from the Salt Lake Tribune.

"Some say that Mormonism, with its emphasis that all beings can progress toward higher planes of existence, before and after death, has a receptivity toward evolutionary thought that other religions might lack."

I'd guess that religions related to Hinduism would also have some evolutionary leanings, then.

Re:Enough Tolerance

[TapTapTheChisler]

Pull up your pants, your truthiness is showing

Re:Butt-ars?

[Clockwork Apple]

I think he may have been reading from the christianity playbook, which also seems to target my kids, I have never had a gay person come to the door and ask me about their (the kid's)immortal soul. But when I moved into my new house a few years back they (those churchie fuckers) were crawling out of the woodwork, and they specifically asked me to send my daughter with them for a few hours once a week even though I am not an easy mark for those theistic con-men.

Ok sir but even if you won't go, just let us take her to sunday school, it's only a few hours.

How fucking sinister does that sound?

C.

Re:Let's quote a non-authority who makes a wild gu

[John Harrison]

I'm going to make up my own number. 90 percent of LDS people don't know what their church's stand on evolution is.

I'd go even further and say that 90% of Mormons think they know the position of the church on evolution and they are wrong. Wrong in that they don't know what the position is, and wrong in that they assume that it is anti-evolution. The official position is that the church takes no position on the matter. Evolution is not incompatible with LDS beliefs.