First Russian Anti-Evolution Suit Enters Court Room

sdriver writes "If you thought it was only the US giving Darwin a hard time, Russia has its own problems starting with evolution. A student has 'sued the St. Petersburg city education committee, claiming the 10th-grade biology textbook used at the Cervantes Gymnasium was offensive to believers and that teachers should offer an alternative to Darwin's famous theory.' The suit, the first of its kind in Russia, is being dismissed out of hand by the principal and teachers. The teacher of the science class had apparently even taken the step of stating at the start of the school year that there were other theories on the origin of life."

Comments

In Soviet Russia...

[1 (smarterThanYou)]

Theory of Evolution sues you! (we all know they're coming...I figured I needed to jump start the process...)

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[lecithin]

In Soviet Russia...

They didn't have this problem.

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[IllForgetMyNickSoonA]

It is modded funny, as it probably also was meant to be, but I'd also give it in "Insightfull".

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[heladoman]

In Soviet Russia they didn't have much of anything...

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[Sciros]

They had no less than what they have now unless you're talking about overpriced "luxury" items which only those that used to already be rich back in the USSR days can afford. Things haven't gotten better for nearly any of the people I personally know that have chosen to remain in Russia. But one thing the USSR certainly didn't have but Russia has now, is a populace whose belief in Communism has been substituted by a belief in the teachings of the Russian Orthodox church.

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah Spanish Inquisition would have this problem fixed by the end of business too.

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[freeweed]

Of course not. Darwinian evolution was a non-issue during much of the Soviet Era, thanks to Lysenko and his influence with the highest levels of government.

Mass starvation ensued. Ignore Mr. Darwin at your own peril, folks.

Obligatory karma whoring Wikipedia link.

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[markov_chain]

Was he trying to breed super-soldiers who don't need food?

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[Sique]

No. Lysenko was Lamarckist and theoretized that you could breed super-grain by seeding normal grain to the best soil, harvest only the largest plants, reseed it, take the largest again etc.pp.
Then the seed won from those experiments was supposed to get bigger harvests also on the normal soils everywhere because the individual seed would have learned to grow bigger because of the good conditions the parents had.

Another biologist of that Stalinist era was Mitshurin, who tried to breed new races of fruit trees by crossbreeding (which is not too bad at all), but forgot that the seeds from those crossbreedings would generate the wild type again, because you can't proliferate fruit tree races by seeds, but you have to engraft a cutting from a tree to a seedling.

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[danbeck]

Oh, right, that's what killed off the old Soviet union. They ignored the theories of a long dead naturalist about the origin of life. Wow, to think that the rest of us have always incorrectly thought that it was the failure of a broken political system and the constant military pressure of the US that brought down the Soviets.

What's it like to be a nincompoop?

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[DragonWriter]

Oh, right, that's what killed off the old Soviet union. They ignored the theories of a long dead naturalist about the origin of life. Wow, to think that the rest of us have always incorrectly thought that it was the failure of a broken political system and the constant military pressure of the US that brought down the Soviets.

Er, the "failure of the broken political system" was a direct result of the fact that the political system was based on and promoted adherence to acceptable ideological dogma as the bases of policy, even where that dogma concerned matters of empirically verifiable fact and was contradicted by systematic investigation of fact.

Lysenkoism and the associated marginalization of Darwinism was a symptom of that problem.

Understanding what was broken about the system is important.

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[Yvanhoe]

And maybe the right to move to another city than their hometown without requiring a visa ?

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[name*censored*]

What's it like to be a nincompoop?

Is this off the dust cover of your autobiography?

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[Sciros]

I don't think anyone emigrated from the USSR on those grounds, haha. As an emigrant myself (1989) I of course agree that there were *countless* problems and taking all into account made one heck of a case for getting out of there. Difficulty of moving from one city to another was a bother, but a minor one considering the difficulty of moving from one *apartment* to another (since that happened more often, and nearly everyone had to deal with it, newly married couples or those with newborns being a prime example). You basically had to either switch with someone, or wait for someone to leave the city altogether.

Sure! Here's your alternative

[jfengel]

If you don't like Darwinism, you're welcome to try Lysenkoism. It's got a long, if not exactly proud, history in Soviet Russia. It's been pretty thoroughly proven false, but unlike Creationism, it's at least a falsifiable theory.

Alternatives to Darwinism

[Tackhead]

Of course, In Soviet Russia, it's not Creationism, it's Lysenkoism!

Re:Alternatives to Darwinism

[value_added]

Of course, In Soviet Russia, it's not Creationism, it's Lysenkoism!

Bonus point for trivia, but my guess is that this involves a recent convert to some form of Protestant evangelicalism, and hence the nutty posturing.

The Orthodox church doesn't have the kind of problems reconciling itself with science. Not that the typical Russian today is very religeous.

other theories

[rovingeyes]

The teacher of the science class had apparently even taken the step of stating at the start of the school year that there were other theories on the origin of life

Those other "theories" are not "scientific theories"

.

Re:other theories

[Anonymous Coward]

The teacher of the science class had apparently even taken the step of stating at the start of the school year that there were other theories on the origin of life

Those other "theories" are not "scientific theories"

Untrue. There are scientific theories as to the origin of life, although I'd say they're very much works in progress. They are not, however "other" theories on the origin of life as evolution is not and has never been intended to be a theory on the origin of life. Evolution is all about what happens to life (imperfect replicators) once you've got it.

Re:other theories

[FellowConspirator]

Correction: the other proposals for the development of life on earth are conjectures, not theories (scientific or otherwise). Further, Darwin proposed natural selection as a mechanism for evolution. That hypotheses has well withstood credible scrutiny and attempts to disprove it, and so is considered a theory (mind you, the modern understanding of the theory is quite more involved than Darwin would have imagined). Darwin never created a theory for the origin of life.

Re:other theories

[Steppman2]

As a creationist, I'd be content with a statement saying that evolution isn't proven, with no specific reference to creationism...most of us just have a problem with it being taught as a fact instead of a theory.

Re:other theories

[drxenos]

Well, that's because Evolution is fact.

Re:other theories

[IllForgetMyNickSoonA]

Oh... you mean, it's only the god-given right of you creationists to present your "theory" as a fact? :-)

Re:other theories

[smooth wombat]

As a creationist, I'd be content with a statement saying that evolution isn't proven,

Which is completely irrelevant since no theory is every proven (how many times does this need to be said?) See the Wiki on what a theory is. Pay particular attention to the first four sentences under the Science heading.

Pick a theory. Any theory. Newton's Theory of Gravity? Not proven. Einstein's Theory of Relativity? Not proven. The Big Bang Theory? Not proven. See the point?

Saying that Evolution is not proven shows a very basic lack of understanding of the scientific process. But hey, don't let me, or anyone else, stop you from continually making a fool of yourself everytime you say a theory isn't proven.

Re:other theories

[Anonymous Coward]

Those other "theories" are not "scientific theories"

I disagree. The search for design, or at least artifacts of fiddling, could be compared to SETI in its very early years.

Yeah, I know, the motivation is religious, but being biased does not keep one from doing valid searches. Perhaps SETI workers are just looking for 3-breasted women. That would make them as biased as somebody looking for a diety. Being biased does not automatically mean you are wrong or are doing science wrong. It is what you do, not what you think that matters.

Another complaint is that we don't know what to look for without knowing more about the DNA/life fiddler. However, we don't know what SETI's ETI is doing either. We just look for human-like technology because that is what we know about. Same with the DNA designer/fiddler.

And one does not necessarily have to explain the original origin of life to look for ETI fiddling of life. The original origin and mere fiddling are two different things. Even many religious believe that dieties "guided" evolution, not necessarily pre-empted or bypassed it.

Re:other theories

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

>As a creationist, I'd be content with a statement saying that evolution isn't proven

so you'd be content with a lie, then?

evolution is a fact. get over it. you are wrong about creationism and no amount of whinging can change a fact.

Re:other theories

[u-235-sentinel]

The teacher of the science class had apparently even taken the step of stating at the start of the school year that there were other theories on the origin of life

Those other "theories" are not "scientific theories"

In addition, I would say none of them are theories with a great deal of proof behind them either. In general the theories put forth are great ideas or stories but have not been provable scientifically.

Re:other theories

[general scruff]

Quit yer whinging!

Re:other theories

[tomjen]

As a member of the flat earth society, I would be content with a saying, that it has not been proven that the earth is round - with no reference to to a flat earth...most of us just have a problem with it being taught as a fact instead of a theory.

Re:other theories

[ArcherB]

Saying that Evolution is not proven shows a very basic lack of understanding of the scientific process. But hey, don't let me, or anyone else, stop you from continually making a fool of yourself everytime you say a theory isn't proven.

Which would explain the the parent post is asking that evolution is not presented as fact, but as a theory, much like the theory of relativity, the big bang theory and so on are all presented as theories. Unfortunately, I've seen too many instances where evolution is presented as fact, not a theory. As you eloquently stated, it is a theory and those presenting it as fact are wrong.

Re:other theories

[Maxo-Texas]

No.
Evolutionists do not believe it started randomly.

They have seen evidence of natural selection.

They have fossil records that coordinate with geologic and other records showing a lack of human fossils fairly recently in history. Predictions made based on plate theory and other models of historical geology have been tested successfully.

The fossil record shows various waves of complex creatures but once you get back far enough, the creatures become simpler and more primitive.

Natural selection provides a reasonable explanation for how creatures can change from a mouse type creature to an elephant type creature in only about 10,000 years. We have observed new species to come into existence in our life time. We have strong evidence from dna that humans had severe pinch points in the very recent past and that we only existed as a species for a couple million years at most.

However-- evolution theory says NOTHING about the start.
Basically it only says that creatures who reproduce more have more children and so their children eventually become the population.
Given random mutations which have no affect in reproductive fitness, the random mutations will be carried.
Given random mutations that lower reproductive fitness, they will disappear (at a speed relative to how harmful they are).
Given beneficial mutations that increase reproductive fitness, those creatures with those mutations will rapidly come to dominate a population.

Looking at the record the best you can say is "it's likely that creatures were very simple before the earliest hard records.

However- it directly confronts religious text since it pretty much says man did not exist and "near men" did exist in pre-religious times. Just like a religion that says the earth is the center of the universe is provably WRONG, any religion that seriously says man only existed for under the last 10,000 years is provably wrong.

Re:other theories

[FellowConspirator]

Therein lies a problem. Evolution is not taught as a fact, it's taught as a theory - in the scientific sense of the term. Science deals with theories and models that can be used to describe and predict natural phenomenon. Scientists don't generally assert that anything is a "fact" in the absolute sense, because doing so would imply that a model is so complete and perfect that it couldn't be further refined or characterized. Natural selection is a theory because it presents a coherent model of a natural phenomenon which predicts observations that can be empirically tested so as to falsify (disprove) it.

The modern understanding of evolution is not limited to Darwin's "natural selection" (those of you paying attention in science class would know that), but is has nonetheless remained a theory for lack of any empirical falsification (disproval), and because it quite accurately and precisely predicts observations.

Further, "creationism" isn't a scientific theory nor does it purport to be. It further doesn't refute natural selection in any way, in only addresses the start condition (initial instance of life on earth), as opposed to the physiological changes of populations over time. If creationism were science, then one would have to accept a priori that it (like all other models) is incomplete and requires refinement via empirical methods (the definition of science, after all). If you go down that route, you ultimately end up with the same model as evolution and affirm natural selection but with a lingering untestable hypothesis about the cause of events that lead to it. In the end, the exercise gives you the same functional result (which you can use to produce food and drugs), but also something that does nothing to further the spiritual and theological aspect of it.

"Creationism" is an important theological concept in the understanding of mankind's spiritual and cosmological significance in the universe; it's part of the fundamental definition of the relationship of God and Man. However, it's not science. It was never intended to be science. It need not be affirmed by science in order to be valid. It represents a theological model, not a scientific one.

Re:other theories

[ArcherB]

>As a creationist, I'd be content with a statement saying that evolution isn't proven

so you'd be content with a lie, then?

evolution is a fact. get over it. you are wrong about creationism and no amount of whinging can change a fact.

Who the hell are you to tell this guy his belief system is wrong? Are some sort of deity yourself, or do you just think you are God? Fact is, evolution is theory, much like the theory of gravity or big bang theory . So you are either telling a lie yourself or you don't know the difference between theory and fact. Your post supports both theories.

Note: I'm not claiming that evolution is wrong. I am claiming that you are an asshole for insulting this guy's religion.

Re:other theories

[Citizen of Earth]

Everything we humans make from Airplanes to Zeppelins requires thought and planning. Evolutionists believe that this thinking process was not needed in the case of life.

The makers of Airplanes and Zeppelins are usually on a tighter schedule than evolution is.

Re:other theories

[It'sYerMam]

For sake of succinctness, in my experience, most of our scientific theories are presented as fact. Have we proven that photosynthesis takes place in the mechanism we believe it does? How about that cells have a phospholipid bilayer? That the universal law of gravitation is universal? All of these are presented as facts, but, in reality, we have simply made repeated observations that imply they are true, and none that imply they are not.

Re:other theories

[Chosen Reject]

I believe in Evolution, and I completely disagree with the idea of having a little disclaimer that says it's only a theory. However, I wouldn't go around claiming that evolution is fact. The scientific community also thought for a fact that the earth was solid. Now we know about plate tectonics, which explain our world in a much better way. Someday though, we might have an even better theory than plate tectonics. Preaching that evolution is irrefutable fact is an ideology and puts it into the same realm as preaching creationism. It's quite possible that in 10, 20, 50, 100, or more years there will be a much better theory that explains life than evolution and natural selection can (I highly doubt it will look anything like creationism, though).

Science must have a basis some where though. So we take what we know and see if it fits the data. If it does then we use it until something either shows that it doesn't really fit the data, or something else fits the data better. Newton came up with some great laws that fit the data we had for centuries. Then we learned about space and time as we approach the speed of light that Newton's laws don't hold to well in. So we came up with the theory of relativity and realized that when we are far from c we can still use Newton's laws. Are Newton's laws then fact? No. They work, but not in every case. Does that mean that any knowledge derived from Newton's laws are useless? Certainly not. They work, just not in every case.

By the same token, evolution and natural selection work, but not in every case, so there must be something else out there that explains the data we have. Perhaps we will find that the theory evolution only needs to be tweaked (such as it only works if we aren't approaching c), or perhaps or theories on the origin of life will need a major overhaul, as when Newton came up with his laws.

The point is, evolution is a theory and any self-respecting scientist will acknowledge that. However, they will also acknowledge that for the time being, it's the best theory we have by far.

I also acknowledge that this whole post is being a little pedantic about the word "fact."

Re:other theories

[Vancorps]

Close but no cigar there. Evolutionists don't even attempt to explain how life began, they state simply that life has evolved and this is fact as we've seen it even in our lifetimes. Evolution is very real and quite observable. Think babies born with tails even to this day. Other theories of how we evolved are up for debate and further study.

Science only attempts to explain what has been observed. Religion as I've seen it attempts to explain a possibility but it isn't based on reality or what has been observed and measured. It attempts to address what we haven't discovered yet but it is often used as a scapegoat. God will cure my fever because I have faith when in reality evolution has given you a great deal of adaptive responses to your environment. Combine that with other knowledge of fever reducing agents either herbal or with synthetic drugs and you take your life into your own hands.

Religion has it's benefits as well as its downsides. A lot of sciences are the same way as well since a lot of technology has both good and bad uses. Still, I wonder what would be inherently superior about the mind of a God as opposed to us. I haven't seen any limit to what the brain can or cannot understand with the proper context and if that is the case then why should we worship someone who can do the same thing as us? It is only nature as you look at celebrities and how they are also worshipped. People want to believe they are part of something bigger and for the people that need this there is religion.

Re:other theories

[general scruff]

Actually, this is good time to point something out that many here might not understand. When you are referring to Evolution as a fact, I think you mean Adaptation. These are two different things. You will get very little (intelligent) argument when saying that adaptation is a fact. It is common knowledge that species will change to suit their environment. Its how we get so many different (and useful) dog breeds, types of finches (Darwin's Finches), etc, etc, etc. Adaptation is not incongruous with belief in creation (Mind you, I'm not talking about the 6 day version roughly 6,000 years ago, the use of the word "Day" in the bible refers more to time periods, and NOT 24 hour cycles of time, but thats an entirely different discussion).

The biggest issue some people take with evolution is the beginning. Proteins floating around, meshing together, and BOOM, you have life, and through it, all life now on Earth.

So when you say that evolution is a fact, either you are wrong, or you are talking about adaptation.

Adaptation is a verifiable fact.

Scientist have YET to create life by meshing proteins together and making a cell, or anything else that resembles life. Until they do that, Evolution will continue to be a Theory.

Re:other theories

[shark72]

"most of us just have a problem with it being taught as a fact instead of a theory."

Congratulations... you're officially the millionth person to misunderstand the use of the word "theory." Those who would like to read along can type "dict theory" into their Firefox URL bar:

The "theory" in "theory of evolution" refers to the first definition of the word:

a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

A lot of people are tripped up by the second definition of the word:

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

When people are boggled by the apparent contradiction when it's explained "evolution is both a theory and a fact," it's because they're trying to apply the 2nd definition of the word "theory." If that's what were being used here, then yeah, it'd could be seen as contradictory. But it is vital to understand that the word "theory" is being used per the first definition, as in "theory of gravity" et al.

Yeah, the English language can be confusing at times; it would have been better if that word didn't have multiple definions, but it does. I hope this has cleared things up for you. Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

Re:other theories

[AP2k]

Perhaps then you should stop taking evolution as fact, since it is, after all, unproven.

Re:other theories

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

>Who the hell are you to tell this guy his belief system is wrong?

it doesn't matter who am I it matters the facts I am basing my opinion on. who the fuck are you to suggest that just because someone has a "belief system" I'm not allowed to point out that they are factually wrong and saying untrue things? what kind of idiot are you that you think it's best to just accept lies because you might hurt someone's feelings if you dare to speak up? do you think Galileo was being a prick for saying the Earth goes around the Sun when he was clearly insulting the belief system of people around him?

evolution is a fact. you are wrong if you claim otherwise. Darwinian natural selection is a scientific theory that very successfully explains the fact of evolution, just like Einstein's general relativity very successfully explains the fact of gravitational attraction.

Re:other theories

[JohnFluxx]

And I demand that gravity is presented as a theory and not fact.

Why don't you campaign against that? All those teachers teaching that things fall down as fact

Re:other theories

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that there is actually physical, experimental, and historical evidence for evolution. Intelligent design is a completely imaginated explanation for un explained questions. Just like man created the air plane, they created the concept of god too.

If you want to equate believing in something based on evidence to believing in something based on a 2000+ year old book, then obviously you like to simplify the matter until it fits in your narrow, ignorant view of reality.

Re:other theories

[Darby]

Who the hell are you to tell this guy his belief system is wrong? Are some sort of deity yourself, or do you just think you are God? Fact is, evolution is theory, much like the theory of gravity or big bang theory . So you are either telling a lie yourself or you don't know the difference between theory and fact. Your post supports both theories.

Ahhh, don't you just love idiots who keep repeating the same delusional lies even right after having reality pointed out to them..
Seriously, Sparky, you're making yourself look very ignorant when you repeat idiotic nonsense like this.

Evolution is a fact. 100% absolutely proven beyond any possible doubt.
Here, I'll prove it to you:
Ever seen a dog?
There you go.

The Theory of evolution is a scientific theory that does a good job of explaining the various mechanisms it uses.

See, it's really simple, and you've had this explained to you several times so you have no excuse for your blind ignorance.

Heck, even if you are stupid enough to try to argue those facts you should at least have the basic common sense to come up with an argument rather than repeating the same exact crap that you me and everybody else in the world knows is a crap.

It makes you a fool and it makes you a liar.


Note: I'm not claiming that evolution is wrong. I am claiming that you are an asshole for insulting this guy's religion.

If the guy's religion is dependent on evolution being false, then it is a stupid religion and should be made fun of until he shuts up in public about his delusions or gets a religion that isn't so easily proven false.

Re:other theories

[Apocalypse111]

Regardless of the crass dismissal of religion, he is correct in that Evolution is a fact. We can see it in labs. We can observe it. The Theory of Evolution is science's best explanation for the processes by which Evolution (the fact) occurs.

Re:other theories

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the inherent contradiction in your sig.

Re:other theories

[Apocalypse111]

Evolution is a fact. We can observe it in labs. The Theory of Evolution is science's best explanation for the processes by which Evolution (the fact) occurs. Check out some of Stephen J. Gould's work for a better explanation - this is the man that has come up with the most recent refinement of Darwin's theories (at least, they were the most recent according to the sources that I looked at a few years ago when I was big into this stuff).

Also, don't forget that its not just natural selection. Darwin wrote a whole book on sexual selection as well. Many factors are involved in the development of traits that are more fit.

Re:other theories

[smooth wombat]

You're mixing and matching. The Theory of Evolution is not, and will never be, proven. But evolution itself, is proven. We have the fossil record to show how various creatures have evolved over time. It is only the mechanism(s) that cause or influence this process that is not proven. The act itself is a fact.

Same thing with gravity. We know gravity is real. We can measure it, we can experience. However, the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Relativity are not proven and will never be. All these theroies do, as the Wiki indicated, is lay out a testable, verifiable process which best explains how these facts come about.

Re:other theories

[ArcherB]

You are correct. Gravity is a bad example. Especially since I was always told it was "The Law of Gravity", not "The Theory..." I was using the GP's (or some other nearby post's) example.

Re:other theories

[SuperStretchy]

I've been saying this for months here and all you'll get is arguments back.

It comes down to this: If you don't believe in a higher authority that ultimately you are responsible to, why would you believe Creationism? In fact Evolutionists refuse to even entertain the idea that Creationism is valid because it undermines their philosophy, and ultimately, sin nature.

Re:other theories

[acgrissom]

You don't "prove" "evolution." The term "evolution" is much too vague to be "proven," and without a definition of what "proof" means in this case, this is a meaningless statement, and it is certainly not a fact. In Carnap's book, Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, he rightly criticizes the willy-nilly use of the word "fact." Empirical laws are based on observation. Carnap criticizes scientists for ambiguously using the term "fact." The term "fact," he says, should refer only to a specific event. For example, "I went to a store yesterday" is a fact. By contrast, "mRNA transcribes genetic material" is a scientific law. A law is based upon repeated observation: it is an inference, and a law is used to predict future facts. Empirical laws are statistical laws.

Re:other theories

[Anonymous Coward]

Gravity *is* a terrible example, since it's almost certainly wrong. I don't know why creationist keep bring it up as an example of how Laws are better then Theories. They should being up Maxwell of someone if they want to claim Laws are more correct then Theories.

Re:other theories

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

you sound a little confused. evolution (the observed fact and the Darwinian theory) says absolutely nothing about the beginning of life. this is just one of the FUD arguments by creationists - that because we don't understand everything about life there is some doubt and that doubt applies equally to all areas of research.

I'm not going to start talking about "adaptation". creationists often try to change the language used to mislead people. they have phrases like "just a theory" to make "theory" sound like "idea" when in fact in science a "theory" is something that is well developed and supported by evidence.

evolution is a fact. sorry if you don't like me saying that but it's simply true by the very best standards of human knowledge.

Re:other theories

[Apocalypse111]

The study of evolution is deals with how the changes in life occur. Scientists dealing with the origins of life are in the field of biogenesis, a field related to evolution but it is *not* evolution.

This "adaption" you mention is what is sometimes referred to as micro-evolution. This is a controversial theory, often used by advocates of Creationism (and to a lesser extent, intelligent-design) to allow them to accept minor changes (such as differing breeds of dogs, etc) while still allowing them to deny that "macro-evolution" or speciation, can occurr. There is no distinction between the two however - both are evolution, slow change over time.

Your understanding of the word "theory" is mistaken in your above usage. When a scientist says "theory", he usually means a scientific theory. When most of us were growing up, we learned about a certain hierarchy of certainty going from guess->theory->fact, but this theory does not sit inside that tree. When a scientist talks about the Theory of Gravity, for example, he is not expressing reservations about its validity. The Theory of Evolution is not a statement that evolution occurs, it is our current best understanding of *how* evolution occurs. We already know that evolution occurs, as we can observe it in labs. In that sense, evolution is a fact. The theory is an explanation of how that process happens that fits with all our present knowledge about the subject.

Re:other theories

[wolrahnaes]

As many others have said, evolution does not cover the beginning. You silly creationists always whine about it, but if you think for a second you can still believe that your god created life in the first place and from there it evolved to what we see now. Of course you like to believe that man was created directly by your god, which is provably false.

Evolution and creation aren't mutually exclusive, but the Genesis version of creation is clearly wrong at all levels. We can easily prove that the earth is much older and formed over a much longer time than specified in the Christian bible, as well as the FACT that humans are descendants of older primate species.

Re:other theories

[Anonymous Coward]

As a non-creationist, I would be very happy if religious people would admit that the existence of a God is a theory and not a fact.

Re:other theories

[Anonymous Coward]

If evolution isn't true, then how would one explain the Flu? If it is not evolving then are Christians/religious people going to accept that the only other explanation is that God himself creates new strains to smite millions of people every year? Sometimes causing hundreds of millions to die. Maybe that's just Jesus expressing his love?

Re:other theories

[Anonymous Coward]

But evolution itself, is proven.

Very true. In fact, the actual argument here is not evolution but Darwin's Origin of Species. Evolution, as a question of whether or not it exists, is no longer a debate (or shouldn't be for those educated enough to know the difference). However, the origin of species on our planet is absolutely up for debate.

Now, IMHO, I find it completely ignorant (in light of the scientific data surrounding evolution) that anyone could intelligently argue that an omnipotent entity created life on earth. The theories are endless but I think it makes more sense that microbes from space debris spawned evolution here - sorry folks, taking Adam & Eve literally (again IMHO) is on parallel with Jane Doe who claims she's pregnant with the baby of lizard-men from space after her recent abduction - in other words: Crackpot.

Re:other theories

[Derosian]

I can't wait till 2000+ years from now people are saying the same thing about our scientific text books.

Re:other theories

[Bobartig]

Newton's LAW of gravity! Sir Newton was a very important man (Lucasian professor of Caimbridge), and did not trifle with theories. He made laws.

Seriously, theory vs. law was very much a political game in science's history. Science is fraught with discontinuities such as laws which have been disproven, and theories that are regarded as fact. Creationists have latched on the a semantic arguement (that evolution is a theory) that holds no meaning to the scientific world.

Re:other theories

[alexjohnc3]

I think you're a bit confused. Scientists don't deny creationism validity because of their "sin nature" (??). If you bother to think a little, then you'll realize that your personal religious beliefs have no place in an objective search for knowledge (hence the application of falsifiability, empiricism, naturalism, etc. in Scientific inquiry instead of things like faith and supernaturalism).

Re:other theories

[Surt]

It makes you a fool and it makes you a liar.

In fairness to the fool, he is not necessarily a liar. He may just be dumb. He may quite plausibly not be smart enough to understand the difference between the fact of evolution, and the theory of evolution. I'd find that quite plausible based on my experience of the large percentage of not so bright people in this world.

Re:other theories

[Surt]

Have you seen pictures of the earth taken from space? The earth is obviously flat. You can watch the continents scroll in from the dark side. The earth is a pretty amazing circular conveyor belt.

Re:other theories

[SuperStretchy]

Excuse me, was I talking to you?

Re:other theories

[Maxo-Texas]

Technically... they don't fall down. They are just attracted to each other.

Re:other theories

[jimibee]

That point is that it's impossible to prove something. We can only construct theories, and at best be very confident in them. Proof is impossible. Everything that is taught in a science classroom (among other classrooms) is theory.

Re:other theories

[scheming daemons]

Note: I'm not claiming that evolution is wrong. I am claiming that you are an asshole for insulting this guy's religion.

Frankly, some religions need to be insulted.

(personally, I think ALL religions are frauds... but that's just me).

But all religions aren't beyond criticism. Do you think EVERY religion, regardless of what it teaches, is worthy of repect and tolerance?

Sorry, bub... but some religions and religious nuts need to be called out for their kookiness and insulted to the n-th degree.

Scientology, for one, is worthy of NO respect whatsoever... it's not even a real religion. It's creator came up with it on a cocktail napkin on a bet...

Frankly... some of the shit people believe needs to be ridiculed. They need to be completely embarrassed out of their blind stupor.

Re:other theories

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the Internets! It is a marvelous place, but one thing you will find about it is, there is more than one other person on it! So when you say something idiotic in a public forum, random strangers may point that out.

HTH. HAND.

Re:other theories

[buhatkj]

and so the _blatant_ non-atheist bashing commences. not that there wasn't plenty in the earlier posts, yours just had the most "oomph" to it.

//just don't wanna be first in line for the lions
///darwin never said life came from inanimate matter, which is the crux of the creationist argument IMHOP, regardless of which form of it one chooses. regardless if it was 7 days or 7 billion years i just don't buy it that a bunch of muck and volcanic ash suddenly sprang to life and formed cells totally randomly.

Re:other theories

[Peyre]

My point was that you are a true asshole for insulting someone's religion and their intelligence for believing in that religion. That makes you a grade-A, class 5 asshole. You are no more right than anyone else, and it shows your terribly misplaced conceit to think otherwise. You're missing the point. Yahweh was more right than the other guy, on the subject of evolution. He's no more right than anyone, necessarily, in saying God exists or doesn't: i.e., in non-testable religious beliefs. But evolution is a very different animal from a religious belief, just as heliocentrism or accepting that the Earth is a sphere. It's one thing to say God exists and wants us to be/do/believe whatever, but it's another thing entirely to target a principle of science which is well-document and backed up by enormous amounts of evidence, and declare that you don't believe it because of your religion. "I believe in God" is a perfectly acceptable statement of religious beliefs. "I don't believe in evolution" or "I don't believe in the germ theory of disease" or "I don't believe in a spherical Earth" is a different thing entirely.

Re:other theories

[2short]

"Excuse me,"

You're excused.

"was I talking to you?"

Yes.

Re:other theories

[JohnFluxx]

I think that makes it an excellent example.

You don't see people complaining that the laws of gravity are taught as fact at school.

Re:other theories

[burner]

The reason your analogy is laughable is that nobody's proposing that today's science books are the word of God. They're just condensations of the current knowledge related to a certain field.

We know that science is fallible. Indeed, that's what makes it science. In 2000 years, the science books will be updated to reflect new understanding about the world based on evidence and tests of hypotheses. Nobody's editing the bible to keep up with the world.

Re:other theories

[buhatkj]

shhhh... don't challenge the group-think. It makes the atheists ornery.

seriously, every time anything about evolution is brought up it starts a huge religious-bashing flamefest, with little if no representation from a religious viewpoint. as far as slashdot is concerned religious folks are not welcome. the comments are not predominantly rational argument, they VERY rapidly become little more than slurs, accusations of stupidity, and insults. the best part is that those who use offensive language don't get modded down. usually, its the already oppressed minority opinion that gets called "flamebait" or "troll" for being different.

flame me/mod down if you want, it just proves i'm right....

Re:other theories

[dedalus2000]

if my religious beliefs for example proscribed that gravity was in fact caused by fairies could i then demand Einstein and Newton not be taught to physics students?

Re:other theories

[pizzaman100]

Evolution is a fact. 100% absolutely proven beyond any possible doubt. Here, I'll prove it to you: Ever seen a dog? There you go.

Actually, dogs prove ID, since they've been bred for specific purposes by humans.

Re:other theories

[manifoldronin]

Wrong logic. "They all fall down" is a fact. "It is the gravity that causes them to fall down" is a theory. There can be many theories to interpret how "they all fall down", just like there are many theories to interpret how "we came to be what we are."

So, your ground to go ahead and demand that gravity is presented as a theory and not a fact is no more or less solid than that for demanding that Darwinism is presented as a theory and not a fact.

Re:other theories

[SuperStretchy]

heh

Re:other theories

[ArcherB]

You're missing the point. Yahweh was more right than the other guy, on the subject of evolution. He's no more right than anyone, necessarily, in saying God exists or doesn't: i.e., in non-testable religious beliefs. But evolution is a very different animal from a religious belief, just as heliocentrism or accepting that the Earth is a sphere. It's one thing to say God exists and wants us to be/do/believe whatever, but it's another thing entirely to target a principle of science which is well-document and backed up by enormous amounts of evidence, and declare that you don't believe it because of your religion. "I believe in God" is a perfectly acceptable statement of religious beliefs. "I don't believe in evolution" or "I don't believe in the germ theory of disease" or "I don't believe in a spherical Earth" is a different thing entirely.

I agree with the evolution point. That's not where I have an issue. I have problems with him calling someone stupid because of their beliefs. Religion is more important to some people than their creed, country or the color of their skin. Therefor, it is that much more offensive to insult someone based on their beliefs. Saying "I disagree" is completely permissible, even encouraged. Saying "you are an idiot and you should die" as he has said many times over, is 100% NOT OK.

Re:other theories

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that people often say that stuff about 10 year old text books and the writers go "Yeah, oops, what are you gonna do." rather than "It is the word of he that is." and so forth.

Re:other theories

[soft_guy]

As a creationist, I'd be content with a statement saying that evolution isn't proven, with no specific reference to creationism...most of us just have a problem with it being taught as a fact instead of a theory. As long as you are OK with my atheist group coming to your church and giving a short presentation to the children about God not being scientifically proven to exist, then I'm OK with your proposal.

Re:other theories

[misanthrope101]

evolution isn't proven...most of us just have a problem with it being taught as a fact instead of a theory.

It hasn't been proven that selection, natural or otherwise, can act on genetic variation to drive divergent change, leading to speciation? That's been proven, shown, witnessed, documented, reproduced, studied, published, talked about, and probably everything short of being made into an opera starring Pavarotti.

The problem is that creationists and ID folk want not just their own opinion, but their own facts. They keep saying that evolution has never been witnessed, that there are no transitional fossils, that evolution is impossible because it violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, and so on. And if you read only creationist literature and have a general distrust of mainstream science, those arguments may seem tenable. But creationst thought only thrives when it's isolated--when you read mainstream literature about evolution, you find that these seemingly burning, portentious questions have been answered time and time again, usually decades ago. This would be like me reading only atheism books to learn about the Bible.

Re:other theories

[Darby]

My point was that you are a true asshole for insulting someone's religion and their intelligence for believing in that religion. That makes you a grade-A, class 5 asshole.

Hardly. If the specifics of their religion contradict reality, then reality wins.
Failure to realise that is stupid. Don't blame me for that fact.

You are no more right than anyone else, and it shows your terribly misplaced conceit to think otherwise.

Depends on the subject. I'm much more right than most people on some obscure topic that I know about but most people don't care in the least about, for example.
Any religion more specific than "God created the universe and hasn't been back since" is silly because it has as its fundamental belief that God is great enough to create the entire univers but he's too pathetic to deliver a simple message effectively.

Living in denial about that fact doesn't help anybody.

You have no right to force your beliefs on others, just as others can not force their beliefs on you. That's what the freedom or religion is all about. I'll kill or die defending that right, and any true patriot will do the same for the Constitution. If you have a problem with that document, I hear Cuba does not have such backwards ideals as a freedom or religion. I also hear it's quite nice this time of year.

I'm not trying to force my beliefs, or lack thereof, on anybody. That's generally the realm of the religious. In fact the extremist Christians are currently taking over America with the *stated* goal of the destruction of the constitution and its replacement with a Christian theocracy.

So, clearly, my sort ain't the threat.

Of course, you fail to even understand what freedom of religion is all about since you're hideously misusing the concept.

You're welcome, as far as I'm concerned, to believe whatever ridiculous nonsense that you want.
You are not welcome to be free from people pointing out that what you do believe is, in fact, ridiculous nonsense.

So, maybe Cuba or Saudi Arabia or somesuch place where criticism is banned would be better for you? You're the only one who has a problem with people speeking freely.


In other words, that makes you a pussy. See, it takes no courage to sit there behind your keyboard and type your drivel. However, if you had real guts and conviction, you'd go a bar that serves the a nearby military base and tell them how you think it's patriotic to murder Republicans, and I assume anyone else that has different views than your own.

And again, you demonstrate your ignorance of the difference between "different views" and "treasonous action".
I don't condone killing Republicans becasue of what they believe, it's for what they do. And what they do is launch savage assaults on America. Setting up death camps is an action, not a belief.
Of course, you have knowledge and belief inextricably muddled in your head, so I don't really expect you to be able to make sense of such simple ideas.

Re:other theories

[JohnFluxx]

You haven't tested that everything will fall down, therefore it's not a fact. All you can say is that you tested some objects, and those objects appeared to fall.

However, we agree. I agree that presenting gravity as a theory and not fact is just as solid ground as demanding that darwinism is presented as theory and not fact.

I was responding to the post that demanded that darwinism is presented as fact when it shouldn't be. I was responded that then everything should be presented as theory and not fact.

Re:other theories

[2short]

How about a statement a the beginning of the year of science class that nothing is ever "proven". Some theories get treated like "fact" because of how sure about them we are. Theories like "The sun will rise tommorow".

Obviously, if one is going to make specific reference to Evolution, one would want to use terms like "fabulously well supported", "the foundation of the modern science of biology", and "on the same essential footing as the theory that the sun will rise tommorow"

I guess I would oppose specific reference to creationism, but it wouldn't be a big deal as long as it was acurately described. Perhaps "Creationism is utterly devoid of, and indeed logically incapable of: evidentiary backing, predictive ability, or scientific worth of any kind."

I mean, my only problem with creationism is it being discussed as theory instead of as pointless solipsistic wanking.

Re:other theories

[Lord Ender]

And I demand that gravity is presented as a theory and not fact.

The existence of a force called "gravity" between all objects of nonzero mass is "proven" in the legal, but not scientific sense of the word.

Words like "theory" and "proven" mean different things in scientific terminology vs legal terminology. The public education system in the USA doesn't teach the difference. Blame the people who come up with the curriculum for your ignorance. Or educate yourself. Your choice.

Re:other theories

[dkasak]

What are you getting so worked up about? You mentioned you don't like people forcing their beliefs onto others, but no forcing has happened here whatsoever. If you are saying the truth when you say that you "agree with the evolution point", why is it wrong to say that the disbelief in evolution is stupid?

Re:other theories

[burner]

Since when does being "religious" mean you have to be Christian? Or that being a religious Christian mean that you have to disbelieve in evolution and prevent it being taught in schools? If you think its wrong, get involved in some cutting edge research and prove it wrong. I promise you, if you develop a novel, testable conceptual framework that better explains and predicts the phenomena we experience, it'll gain acceptance.

There are many religious scientists. There are even many religious Christian scientists (even Christian Scientists, but that's something different ;-)). There are also atheist and even anti-religious scientists. The bigotry inherent in your defensive complaints belies your prejudice and bias. Keep your religion in your church and out of the communities schools.

You're free to teach your kid anything you like, even take them out of classes, if you wish. Just don't try and deny everyone else their right to learn the latest science.

Re:other theories

[Chris Burke]

This "adaption" you mention is what is sometimes referred to as micro-evolution. This is a controversial theory, often used by advocates of Creationism (and to a lesser extent, intelligent-design) to allow them to accept minor changes (such as differing breeds of dogs, etc) while still allowing them to deny that "macro-evolution" or speciation, can occurr. There is no distinction between the two however - both are evolution, slow change over time.

Which is such a cop-out, when evolution-skeptics try to create the distinction. They try to do it because among scientifically minded and aware folks, saying species don't change over time is a sure way to be laughed at. They're trying to get their creationism-based beliefs to be accepted scientifically, so they create the whole "macro-evolution" red-herring, but it doesn't work. So they agree that "micro-evolution" occurs. Alright. Take a population, split it in two such that there is no cross-breeding. Over time each experiences "micro-evolution". Eventually one of these "micro-evolutionary" changes modifies reproductive mechanics, such that were you to bring the two populations together again, they would be unable to interbreed. Bam, you have speciation.

You can't accept "micro-" without "macro-". As you say, they're really one and the same.

Re:other theories

[Copid]

When you are referring to Evolution as a fact, I think you mean Adaptation.

This is a fascinating phenomenon. If you talk to a biologist, he'll most likely laugh at this claim. Evolutionary changes exist on a continuum. Creationists have taken that portion of the continuum that is so obvious that nobody could argue against it (even though creationists were more than happy to fight it back in the good old days) and renamed it "adaptation" to separate it off and keep evolution as a dirty word. They have yet to come up with a convincing definition that separates the two, but they'll cling to the difference because without it, there's no goalpost moving.

Re:other theories

[Copid]

flame me/mod down if you want, it just proves i'm right....

I would grant your wish and mod you down, but there's no "-1: Empty, self-pitying martyr post" option.

Re:other theories

[ArcherB]

Hardly. If the specifics of their religion contradict reality, then reality wins.
Failure to realise that is stupid. Don't blame me for that fact.

This is my point! You are equating faith to stupidity. Let me quote Einstein.
"God does not play dice with the universe."
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
Are you really smart enough to call Einstein stupid? Why are you wasting your time with me and not working the Grand Unified Theory?

Any religion more specific than "God created the universe and hasn't been back since" is silly because it has as its fundamental belief that God is great enough to create the entire univers but he's too pathetic to deliver a simple message effectively.

You should read beyond the first chapter before you claim to speak from a position of authority. You really should not argue against things you know nothing about.

I'm not trying to force my beliefs, or lack thereof, on anybody. That's generally the realm of the religious. In fact the extremist Christians are currently taking over America with the *stated* goal of the destruction of the constitution and its replacement with a Christian theocracy.

and how's that? By putting a Christmas tree on the town square? By singing Christmas carols in a school choir? For some reason, when I saw that tree or those carolers, neither my freedom of speech, nor my right to own a firearm, nor my right to protest, nor any other right was suddenly violated. And if the "extremist Christians" are taking over America and destroying the Constitution, then they are doing a really crappy job because I see the number of Mosques increasing and number of churches declining. I think your fears are unfounded, or at least pointed in the wrong direction.

So, maybe Cuba or Saudi Arabia or somesuch place where criticism is banned would be better for you? You're the only one who has a problem with people speeking freely.

No, in these countries, I would face religious persecution by both the governments and the populations. This country was founded, formed and populated by those trying to escape such persecution. Our forefathers wanted to create a country where its citizens could worship free from prosecution. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case as bigots have burned churches and crosses and flown planes into buildings all in the name of religion and religious intimidation. And the way I see it, ridiculing one because of their faith (which means belief without evidence) is no different than the cross burning bigots of the past.

And again, you demonstrate your ignorance of the difference between "different views" and "treasonous action".
I don't condone killing Republicans becasue of what they believe, it's for what they do. And what they do is launch savage assaults on America. Setting up death camps is an action, not a belief.

Your ignorance of history is embarrassing, but I guess ignorance is what keeps you from blushing. Comparing Guantanamo Bay, where one prisoner died due to illness, to true death camps where billions have either been actively murdered or worked or starved to death is telling of your extremist views. The inmates at Guantanamo have better nutrition, health care and religious freedoms than the countries that they came from. If that's a death camp, you need a new term for Auschwitz.

Re:other theories

[ArcherB]

What are you getting so worked up about? You mentioned you don't like people forcing their beliefs onto others, but no forcing has happened here whatsoever. If you are saying the truth when you say that you "agree with the evolution point", why is it wrong to say that the disbelief in evolution is stupid?

The same way it is wrong to say not eating pork is stupid. It's the same as saying not working on Saturday is stupid. It's the same as saying that choosing wearing a veil (ha jib) is stupid. Many people more brilliant than myself have had beliefs different than my own. I am not one to call them stupid. Just because we disagree, no matter how sure we are in our knowledge, we have no right to call someone stupid based on their faith.

Re:other theories

[Danny Rathjens]

In fairness to the fool, he is not necessarily a liar. He may just be dumb. He may quite plausibly not be smart enough to understand the difference between the fact of evolution, and the theory of evolution. I'd find that quite plausible based on my experience of the large percentage of not so bright people in this world.

And that is precisely why the creationists call it the theory of evolution instead of the theory of natural selection - which is what Darwin called his theory that explains "the main, but not exclusive" means by which the observed fact of evolution occurs. They *want* to confuse people.

Re:other theories

[JohnFluxx]

which was pretty what my attempt at satire was getting at to the post I replied to

Re:other theories

[kurzweilfreak]

Why is religion protected from criticism any more than any other belief system like economics or politics? What makes religion automatically deserving of respect, especially when it contradicts reality?

Re:other theories

[pla]

Just like a religion that says the earth is the center of the universe is provably WRONG

Although I see your point, that one doesn't technically count as true. You can prove the Earth as not the center of the solar system, but you can't prove that we don't sit right smack-dab in the center of the universe. To do that, we'd need to know the boundaries of the universe - And since those either don't exist (infinite universe) or recede away from us at the speed of light (greater, if you take inflation into account), we can never actually point to a spot in the sky and say "There lies the center of the universe, which we don't occupy".



However-- evolution theory says NOTHING about the start.

That all depends on what you call "evolution", which despite the best attempts of folks who throw about terms like "evolutionists", actually includes quite a good number of smaller well-tested theories (with, admittedly, a few SMALL gaps, but I say that in the interest of the truth, not because I erroneously believe that it matters if we don't have a perfect fossil of a particular prehuman ancestor).

Miller and Urey's famous 1953 experiment demonstrated that you can "create" relatively complex organic molecules (such as amino acids) with just water, ammonia, methane, and lightning. More recent experiments (I don't have a cite for any, sorry - someone feel free to provide one) found that seasonal movement beween ice sheets can combine simple amino acids into much longer protein chains. And there you can stop, since you have all the preconditions needed for prions (self-replicating proteins). Once you have self-replication, the "theory of evolution" as most people understand it (basically just natural selection) kicks in, and you just need to wait for random mutations to do the rest.

The rest of the collection of smaller, testable theories I refer to provide proof-of-concept for possible paths (though of course, not proveably "the" path, but irrelevant) to most of the major leaps needed to go from Miller's flask to humans (such as bilipid membranes, RNA, cellular organelles, cells, and so on). But those just ice the cake, as I point out above. Once you have self-replication, game over, "life" wins.

Re:other theories

[ricosalomar]

I just don't like the idea of space travel being taught as a fact. Or photography, for that matter. What kind of crackpot believes in "moving pictures" anyway?

Re:other theories

[DragonWriter]

You don't see people complaining that the laws of gravity are taught as fact at school.

Despite the fact that Newtonian gravitation, often taught as a fact particularly at lower grade levels, is not merely a "theory" but an outdated theory that has since been disproven but just happens to remain a useful close approximation of the modern theory under common conditions.

Re:other theories

[rohan972]

Oh... you mean, it's only the god-given right of you creationists to present your "theory" as a fact? :-)

If science openly presents itself as a religion, it can do so also. Religions tend to claim revelation from a superior being as the source of knowledge. In reality, science often operates the same way, but the superior being is supposed to be the scientist instead of a god.

I think religions tend to be dogmatic because people tend to be dogmatic. Science has not escaped this human tendency except in the case of observable repeatable phenomena, which tend to silence opposition without resorting to dogmatism. That's why you can have intelligent people, trained as scientists, come to the opposite conclusions on various matters, just as people follow different religions.

If we want science to avoid being labeled as religion, it needs to avoid the methods of religion. Comments like this, attributed to Richard Lewontin, don't help science to be percieved as objective:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to understanding the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for the unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism."

So while science ought not to be a religion, to some, it obviously is. Such views should be diligently kept out of the classroom, particularly from being taught in government schools as fact.

Re:other theories

[ArcherB]

it doesn't matter who am I it matters the facts I am basing my opinion on.

I think this says it all. You have your opinion, others have theirs. No one has the right to tell another that their opinions are wrong, because by definition, they are not right either. You are free to disagree, but to insult someone's intelligence is a bit bigoted and extremely disrespectful. It is arrogant to assume that your opinions are more important than someone else's.

do you think Galileo was being a prick for saying the Earth goes around the Sun when he was clearly insulting the belief system of people around him?

No, Galileo pointed out that his observations led him to believe that the earth is not the center of the universe. He never insulted the intelligence of the "powers that be". The pricks were the ones who locked him up for it. They stood defiant and told him he was wrong because his beliefs were different than their own. Given the era, there were actually more "scientists" of the day claiming that Galileo was wrong. It was common knowledge that the earth was the center of everything, and Galileo went against the most current scientific "facts" and the pricks ridiculed him for it.

All of this should sound familiar by the way. Granted, all current scientific data points to evolution, just like all current scientific data pointed to the earth being central when Galileo presented his "beliefs".

Re:other theories

[Fred_A]

The makers of Airplanes and Zeppelins are usually on a tighter schedule than evolution is.

Maybe they are, but the flying car makers certainly aren't.
(disgruntled and *still* waiting)

Re:other theories

[Fred_A]

You don't see people complaining that the laws of gravity are taught as fact at school.

Shouldn't a movement be started to petition that the alternate theory that angels are pulling people by their feet be taught alongside the heathen pagan so called "law" of gravity ?

It just might make people think a little about the issue... (or it might get taught in Kentucky* or some other weird place, who knows).

* name of state picked at random

Re:other theories

[Cadallin]

Additional problem, the components to make Airplanes, Zeppelins, Grandfather Clocks, and Pocket Watches, are not naturally occurring (gears, springs, struts, rivets, etc) Thus, even given a very large amount of time, they are VERY unlikely to evolve. The things which living organisms are made of (amino acids, lipids, sugars, various salts, water, etc) ARE naturally occurring. They form almost anywhere the prerequisite elements are found in the presence of an energy source, barring the presence of molecular oxygen. However, given that molecular oxygen is only known to occur in quantity where it is created by living things, that doesn't really pose a significant barrier.

Re:other theories

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

You mean metallic ores can't evolve into gears, springs, struts, or rivets? Or sand into watch crystals?
Awww...

Re:other theories

[jstomel]

Correct, the theory of evolution deals with the origin of species, not the origen of life. However, anyone interested in some interesting modern scientific theories on how life did originate can google "RNA world hypothesis" for some interesting reading. I would also recomend most of the papers by Jack Szostak for anyone looking for scientific evidence that this is possible.

Re:other theories

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to break it to you, but it is possible for a theory to be made up entirely of facts. Look up the scientific definition of fact. The problem lies in the casual meanings of theory and fact. In casual terms, a theory is a guess or conjecture, and a fact is the truth. In science, a theory is a falsifiable explanation and a fact is a phenomenon that is repeatedly and consistently observable. Hence gravity is a theory that explains and predicts several facts, relativity is a theory that explains and predicts several facts, and EVOLUTION is a theory that explains and predicts several facts. Creationism is an untestable conjecture that neither explains or predicts any facts, which is why it has ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE IN A SCIENCE CLASSROOM. IT IS NOT AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY TO EVOLUTION. It is no more useful or likely to be true than just saying it all happened by chance. It is a purely philosophical standpoint and should therefore only be presented as such. Pretending that it is a competing scientific theory to evolution is a LIE and god doesn't like LIARS, does he?

Re:other theories

[chooks]

You, sir, must mean Intelligent Falling.

Re:other theories

[nathanh]

As a creationist, I'd be content with a statement saying that evolution isn't proven, with no specific reference to creationism...most of us just have a problem with it being taught as a fact instead of a theory.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

Evolution - defined as a change in alleles frequency in a population - has been observed in the lab and in the wild. Evolution is a fact.

The theory of human evolution has strong corroborating evidence. And predictions that are successful. It's an extremely successful theory. But it is only a theory.

The theory of evolution by natural selection has strong corroborating evidence. And predictions that are successful. It's an extremely successful theory. But it is only a theory.

The theory of speciation by evolutionary change has strong corroborating evidence. And predictions that are successful. It's an extremely successful theory. But it is only a theory.

Half the noise seems to be from people who don't understand the facts, but are annoyed or frightened by one of the theories.

Re:other theories

[nathanh]

we have no right to call someone stupid based on their faith.

Sure we do. It's called the right to free speech. I think you're an idiot because you've taken political correctness to the stupid extreme that deserves ridicule. I also think your religion sucks and you smell bad. I have every right to say all of that.

Welcome to the real world. Sometimes people say hurtful things. Suck it up and deal with it.

Re:other theories

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Okay. I am not a scientist. I will never be a scientist for reasons that will soon be clear.
I was taught creationism long ago, before Intelligent Design was acceptable to creationists. For this reason, I consider Intelligent Design ridiculous.
But I am fascinated by biology. I am fascinated by the theory of evolution and the world that this theory depicts. I am fascinated by self-building watches. I have accepted that biology as currently practiced and evolution as currently theorized are inextricably entwined.
I now accept that natural selection is mostly proven. It, or something very like it, has been seen to happen.
I now accept that speciation is a reasonable theory. It, or something very like it, has been seen to happen.
I accept that, given one suitable single-celled organism, suitable conditions, and sufficient time, natural selection can lead to any number of plants, invertebrates, fish, amphibians, extinct taxa, and reptiles, right up to snakes, mammal-like reptiles, and early dinosaurs. Unfortunately, I am undecided about the accepted geologic timescale, which is one reason I'll never be a scientist.
I am not certain how speciation could work with any speed, even at accepted geologic time, for species which have fixed sex chromosomes and do not have parthenogenesis. Any mutation that would turn something from an Archaeopteryx to another species of avian dinosaur would have to hit at least two different individuals, one of each sex, at the same time. Same with mammals.
Then again, the lines between species seem to blur among mammals and birds. Bird subspecies A can mate with Bird subspecies B, which can mate with Bird subspecies C, which can mate with Bird subspecies D--which cannot mate with subspecies A. Bison bison bison can mate with Bos primagenituri taurus, which isn't even the same genus, until almost all the American bison in the world are part cow. So clearly, I don't understand that part of biology.
I will admit to being disappointed that Hominidae now contains (other) great apes; I'll also admit to being relieved that zoological nomenclature made sure that the reorganized family was Hominidae and not Pongidae. (Yes, I have read S. J. Gould.) Another reason I cannot be a scientist. After all, who would want to lower a great ape to the average human's level?

Re:other theories

[buhatkj]

whoa whoa whoa back up dude. i NEVER said we should stop teaching evolution. i never said we should teach religion in schools. i merely complained that threads about evolution on slashdot frequently degenerate to bashing religious people. of any flavor, not just Christians. i do not intend to deny anything to anyone. dont put words in my mouth.

did you even read my post or did you just knee-jerk out this flame huh???

Re:other theories

[trianglman]

In reality, science often operates the same way, but the superior being is supposed to be the scientist instead of a god.
Wrong: any information provided by a scientist is thoroughly tested by other scientists in the same field to see if they get the same results. If they do the experiments are published in peer reviewed journals of science and accepted into the body of general knowledge. The key point here is that for it to become an accepted scientific theory, experiments or research must be performed and other people must be able to come to the same conclusion. Religion however must be taken on faith.

What was this quote related to? If I am understanding it properly, and without context I can't be completely sure, he is merely saying that, even if a scientific theory sounds absurd, if it is what the facts support it should be accepted. Again, the difference between science and religion (most times) is that religion decides the cause and looks at the effects while science looks at the effects and tries to determine a cause.

Re:other theories

[jtev]

Major point about Gallileo. He actualy did insult the powers that be. Directly. He called the pope a simpleton. And if the pope were not a close personal friend, he would have felt the full weight of the inquizition, for being a dumbass. He was also conviced because he refused to acknowledge evidence that would have proven the heliocentric model to an extent that would have removed the heresy charge for teaching it all because he was to much of an ass to sway from his conviction that comets were optical illusions. Belive it or not, the rule on heresy for the Roman inquisition was that if reality and scripture disagree, reality wins. Galleleo was a prick, and a bully.

Re:other theories

[Darby]

This is great. You just made my argument, but you don't even realise it.

<me>Hardly. If the specifics of their religion contradict reality, then reality wins.
Failure to realise that is stupid. Don't blame me for that fact.</me>

This is my point! You are equating faith to stupidity. Let me quote Einstein.

Below you define faith: "faith (which means belief without evidence)".
I agree with that definition.

I didn't equate faith with stupidity. I equated belief in *contradiction* of evidence with stupidity.

Believing that some being put it all in motion does not contradict reality.

Believing that that same being has nothing better to do than screw with people about what they eat, who or how they fuck and sets them up against each other by having them kill each other in his name, does.

God the petulant 6 year old, great.

I think you'll find that your Einstein quotes actually back up my position as well.

You should read beyond the first chapter before you claim to speak from a position of authority. You really should not argue against things you know nothing about.

First chapter of what? The Iliad? Koran?
The point I made doesn't rely on the specifics of any particular religion.

All you have to do is look around.

Say, for the sake of argument, that there is a God.
Say, further, that he loves us and wants us all to be nice, happy, not blowing up buildings full of people sort of folks.

Then the simple fact that he told a bunch of different people so many contradictory things about himself isn't really the best way to go about that.

Or, if you're of the mind that your team got it right and all the rest got fake revelations, well that's a pretty piss poor way to achieve those goals as well, don't you think?

So, that's a pretty simple message, delivered ineffectively as was my claim.
You want to add in even more specifics than just that simple of a message and yet there are plenty of people still worshipping "false" gods. And killing and getting killed for largely trivial differences.

Heck, the only way God doesn't come off looking incompetent is if you conclude he's just a dick. He's pretty good at that.


and how's that? By putting a Christmas tree on the town square?

I've never had a problem with Christmas trees. That tradition goes way back before your religion. It could well predate your god even, but I don't know that there's any evidence on that one way or the other.

And if the "extremist Christians" are taking over America and destroying the Constitution, then they are doing a really crappy job because I see the number of Mosques increasing and number of churches declining. I think your fears are unfounded, or at least pointed in the wrong direction.

I'm talking about folks like these:

ID Loons trying to cram their religion into science classes to dumb down our future.

Universities dedicated to gettig religious extremists i positios of power.

And other groups driven by their hatred for American values

Plus the scumbag fag haters, the clinic bombers and other terrorists.

This country was founded, formed and populated by those trying to escape such persecution.

That describes some of those who first came here, although most of those are described as extremists who were thrown out of their home countries for their intolerance and savage ways to those who didn't buy ito the particular brand of crap they were peddling.

Our forefathers wanted to create a country where its citizens could worship free from prosecution.

This is so entirely typical of the deeply dishonest historical revisionism commonly practiced by Christian extremists.

They wanted a country where people were free from the persec

Re:other theories

[arminw]

....The things which living organisms are made of (amino acids, lipids, sugars, various salts, water, etc) ARE naturally occurring......

There are no natural building blocks for even the simplest proteins occurring naturally, because even the simplest known protein is more complicated than a 747 airliner. A "simple cell" has more processes and functions going on inside than a city like LA or Tokyo. Evolution by natural selection implies there is something to select for. Natural selection only works for processes and mechanism where no new information has to be added. Evolution has some valid explanations for the adaptation of living things. Life requires not only matter and energy, but also information. This information is recorded in the DNA molecules in an analogous manner to information stored on a computer disk. It is software code arising in a mind. The instructions are for building living organisms. To make Airplanes and Zeppelins not only requires the proper parts, but also the instructions an how to assemble these parts into a working model. If someone gave you ALL pieces of say an automobile, all bolts, nuts, pistons, brake shoes etc, you, who possess an intelligent mind would still have a tough time to put that together and have it run if they not also provided detailed instructions. Evolutionists believe that complexity of life, many orders of magnitude greater than any human device ever conceived, happened without instructions.

The generation of information is the exclusive province of a mind. Everything we make and do begins in a human mind. Why is it so difficult to accept the perfectly reasonable premise that the complexities of living things also first began in a superb mind, the mind of God? Every human law has one or more legislators, who (usually) have sound minds. Why should it be any different with the laws of physics and life? You and I and the whole Universe and the laws it runs by, were first conceived of in a mind, the mind of God. Is that idea incompatible with science? I don't think so.

Re:other theories

[Nirvelli]

"any religion that seriously says man only existed for under the last 10,000 years is provably wrong."

Really?

I have had many lengthy discussions with people on the issue of evolution/creation/etc., and of all the things people tell me, nobody has ever actually tried to prove to me that man existing for under the last 10,000 years is wrong.

So please, prove it.

Re:other theories

[sportster]

We can easily prove that the earth is much older and formed over a much longer time than specified in the Christian bible, Easily prove? How? One of the biggest problems with evolution is the amount of time needed for it to occur. The billions of years needed for evolution run into serious problem with the fact that the Sun is shrinking http://www.icr.org/article/165/ and the Moon is moving away from the Earth http://www.icr.org/article/204/. Both of these natural clocks show that the Earth could not be old enough for evolution to occur.

Re:other theories

[arminw]

....Nobody's editing the bible to keep up with the world.....

That's because nobody has ever discovered any FACTS that contradict it. No human discoveries in any branch of science or history have ever been at odds with what is stated in the original languages the Bible was written in. Now there have been plenty of conjectures and interpretations of facts and the Bible that have been at odds. One of the major errors made by science is assuming that things were always as we see them today. Since we don't have a time machine, we have no way of knowing for sure how things were.

For example, we assume that we can date rocks and other stuff by radioactivity. The underlying assumption (faith) is that the rate of radioactive decay has never varied from what we see it today. There is an increasing body of evidence that this is not so. It appears that some of the so called "constants" of physics have been far from being so. These "constants" determine the rate of radioactive decay among other things. Partly, it is from this uniformitarian assumption, that we get the idea of the immense ages of billions and billions of years.

Mr. Hubble first measured the red shift. That is a fact, there IS such a thing. But then he INTERPRETED this to be caused by the Doppler effect. Recent more accurate measurements show that this red shift is QUANTIZED. This negates Mr. Hubble's "accepted" explanation for the cause of this observed red shift. Unfortunately for the promulgators of billions and billions of years, it also makes the Universe much younger. Again, an interpretation based on an assumption, not the actual observed facts makes us imagine that the Universe is old. I believe that long before another 2000 years go by, the present idea of the age of the universe will have been thoroughly demolished and the new understanding be more in line with the chronology outlined in the Bible.

Re:other theories

[Euler]

"In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life."

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiolo gy/miller.html

This is basic 10th grade biology class in a public school. Amino acids do form in natural circumstances. This is exactly why arguments for creationism are not scientifically valid. There is direct evidence to disprove creationist arguments and creationists refuse to accept them.

Re:other theories

[Anonymous Coward]

On casual inspection, you appear to have three words in your post that are not complete and utter bullshit.

Re:other theories

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm. Haven't you heard anyone talk about the earliest cave paintings? Modern human archaeological sites; 30,000+ years old.

Re:other theories

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

>i just don't buy it that a bunch of muck and volcanic ash suddenly sprang to life and formed cells totally randomly.

to put it bluntly, that's because you're an idiot and don't have a clue what science actually says let alone why it says it.

Re:other theories

[smidget2k4]

The idea is not incompatible with science. If you want to believe that, go ahead, just as someone can believe the FSM created everything and have exactly as much credence, or a polytheist. However, it is not a theory, it is not a valid argument, and to want to teach it as such is wrong.

No one is trying to say you are not entitled to believe that or discuss it in a church, but calling it anything other than a belief, or comparing it to scientific theories, is wrong.

And as the other post on this level pointed out, amino acids have been created in a laboratory setting.

Re:other theories

[koreaman]

You don't understand the meaning of the words "theory" and "conjecture".

In addition, you have no evidence to suggest that God was involved in any part of the creation process, whereas we DO have mounds of evidence for evolution.

Re:other theories

[QuoteMstr]

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

Re:other theories

[mapkinase]

There are "proven" and "proven". There are repeatable experiments in controlled environment that give solid evidence for physical theories that you mentioned (except for Big Bang theory which belongs to the same category as macro-evolution - hystorical sciences).

There are no repeatable experiments in controlled environment for any macro-evolution claims that would require long periods of observation of large population of specimen. That's right, because of the subject.

Re:other theories

[name*censored*]

A "simple cell" has more processes and functions going on inside than a city like LA or Tokyo

Self referencial; LA/Tokyo have squillions of 'simple cells' in them :P

However you raise a good point... I don't see why Evolution and religion cant peacefully co-exist, ala evolution guided by God. Genesis is written in a very fable/analogy/etc-like structure, even compared to the rest of the bible (which isn't exactly the world's foremost example of How To Write A Book With No Fables Whatsoever). Plus, the creation is only about half a page long - it's a bit stupid to make such a fuss over half a page of a several hundred page book.

Re:other theories

[arminw]

....amino acids have been created in a laboratory setting.....

Exactly, by INTELLIGENT scientists guessing at the probable composition of the earth's atmosphere. Mr. Miller et al used an atmosphere devoid of oxygen. There is lots of evidence that the earth's atmosphere has ALWAYS had oxygen in it. This oxygen would negate that by now throughly discredited experiment, since oxygen immediately destroys any complex compounds, such as amino acids. Also, the experiment makes amino acids of opposite chirality (twist) of those needed for life. Oxygen is the most abundant element on the surface of this planet. Even to make an experiment that excludes this abundant element from the atmosphere is ridiculous. Yet this experiment, a blatant fakery and lie, which even evolutionists no longer believe is still found in many textbooks today.

There are at least 6 processes that are generally labeled "evolution". Only one of these has ever been observed. That is the adaptation of organisms to their environment. All the others, fossil formation, biogenesis, chemical and stellar evolution have NEVER been observed or duplicated in a lab. We have seen stars explode, but never form. The fact that planets spin in opposite directions and are of vastly different compositions, makes it impossible that they came from a common source, such as a primal star. The law of conservation of angular momentum demands that any matter ejected from a spinning object, such as a supposed parent star must ALL spin in the SAME direction.

Evolution is a religion that tries to explain the Universe without the activity of mind, the Mind of God. The very word 'Universe' means One Word. The creative Word "...and God said...".

Re:other theories

[arminw]

....This is basic 10th grade biology class in a public school. Amino acids do form in natural circumstances....

Mr. Miller et al used an atmosphere devoid of oxygen. That is a very UNNATURAL circumstance.

There is lots of evidence that the earth's atmosphere has ALWAYS had oxygen in it. This oxygen would negate that by now throughly discredited experiment, since oxygen immediately destroys any complex compounds, such as amino acids.

See the rest of my reply down this chain.

Re:other theories

[zuiraM]

Evolution is not proven. It has simply been satisfactorily (sp?) demonstrated. Which is quite enough until someone can cast doubt on it with evidence to the contrary, or until something else comes up which can be comparatively tested to determine what is the most accurate model.

Proving something is, as I recall, technically impossible. You can just keep adding to the list of conforming observations, and assume that it's correct because there aren't any credible contradictory observations. Over time, your confidence grows.

But, yes, many people confuse the theory about the hows of evolution (a fairly well-tested theory that describe the mechanism) with the theory that it happened (a very well-tested theory that states that it has happened, based on fossil records, etc.).

And many people confuse Intelligent Design with a theory, where in fact it is a belief which does not have any place in the realm of science due to the absence of falsifiable hypothesis. That said, one could claim String Theory falls under the same heading, but there is at least some indication that it eventuall *will* come up with a falsifiable hypothesis, and in the mean time it brings something to the table: better math for some previously untractable problems.

Unless we encounter some alien civilization that says "yeah, we remember you guys. you were the 3rd grade science project of xz'hrgqlff over there.", or some godlike being descends upon the earth to grace us with the patience to submit to scientific testing, there will never be any falsifiable tests for Intelligent Design. And even those would only apply to life on earth, not life in general; plus, the question of turtles all the way down will remain.

Re:other theories

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know where you get this stuff, but you are being lied to.

Re:other theories

[arminw]

... it's a bit stupid to make such a fuss over half a page of a several hundred page book.....

That is not the issue. Evolution is just another religion that, like all religion, tries to answer four important questions that every thinking human asks at some point in their life:

1, Where did I come from?
2, Who am I, really?
3, What, if any, is the purpose of existence?
4, What will happen to me after I die

Unlike adherents of other religions, believers in evolution try to answer these questions only by reference to the things their finite little minds can understand. Thus they have elevated their own minds to deity. This is of course the ancient lie offered to Eve in the Garden: "You shall be as God". We are human, not Gods, responsible to Him. As created beings, we all better get that through out collective arrogant heads. Why is man so incurably religious? Could it possibly be that the Creator has placed within us a deep, burning, unquenchable yearning to intimately know Him? To me and many others, the answers provided in the Bible are far more satisfying than the tenets of any other religion, including the state religion of the USA, evolution.

Re:other theories

[Chosen Reject]

I see that you matched my pedanticism of the word fact and raised me by the pedanticism of the use of the terms evolution and theory of evolution. I was using the two interchangably simply because evolution has been observed and for anyone to refute that is just silly. So I assumed that the grandparent to my first post was referring to the *theory* of evolution and not evolution itself, thus I used the two terms interchangably. If anyone wants a disclaimer in a science book that says evolution is just a theory then they might as well put a disclaimer in all geography books saying "Some people only theorize that the earth is not flat despite many observances of said phenomenon to the contrary."

That being said, I am still opposed to even a disclaimer about the *theory* of evolution, but certainly opposed to a disclaimer for evolution. I would be disappointed in the former, but give up hope on the latter. At that point I would start sending my kids to Strong Bad's School of Technology. They'd probably get more out of it then a science class that puts disclaimers on observations.

Re:other theories

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not certain how speciation could work with any speed, even at accepted geologic time, for species which have fixed sex chromosomes and do not have parthenogenesis. Any mutation that would turn something from an Archaeopteryx to another species of avian dinosaur would have to hit at least two different individuals, one of each sex, at the same time. Same with mammals. I am surely oversimplifying, but... You only need one mutant gene that is passed to the offspring. If it is dominant, it will be expressed. The offspring's offspring then has about a 50% chance of getting the gene. If the gene provides a survival/reproductive advantage, eventually a significant population would have the mutant gene. Given enough time and mutations, you have a new species.

Re:other theories

[Citizen of Earth]

Evolution is just another religion that, like all religion,

Evolution is science. Religion is religion. Science is rationality. Religion is absolute belief without evidence. Science is conditional belief in tons of empirical evidence and peer-reviewed repeatable experimentation. Religion is substituting "I don't know" with "God did it". Religion is a cop-out. Don't insult rationality by equating it to fantasy.

Re:other theories

[Bush Pig]

Be fair. They haven't taken 4 billion years ... yet.

Re:other theories

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't a movement be started to petition that the alternate theory that angels are pulling people by their feet be taught alongside the heathen pagan so called "law" of gravity ?

Don't be ridiculous. Angels pulling people by their feet would clearly be religion not science. You have to replace "angels" with "intelligent pullers" to make it all scientifical. Then we can promote teaching it in schools.

Re:other theories

[wolrahnaes]

Your first linked article makes the claim that the Earth can't be more than 20 million years old. This is in obvious conflict with little details like almost the entire Mesozoic era. Just about 230 million years of the existence of life that the "Institute of Creation Science" [as I restrain laughter at the concept of calling something that can never be tested a science] chooses to ignore.

The second one is even more laughable, again mixing overly simplified pseudoscience with diversions to insult "evolutionary science". The paragraph about the moon dust is especially amusing, as they claim that "evolutionary scientists" were wrong and "creationist scientists" were right while using their own book as a reference for the claim.

Re:other theories

[Bush Pig]

Religion deserves to be insulted by those who have the wit to look behind the curtain.

As others have stated, evolution is a fact (think flu viruses), whereas the Theory of Evolution is a theory (which is as better supported by the facts than many other scientific theories which are widely accepted by the loonies^Wcreationists).

Re:other theories

[Maxo-Texas]

There is a wide variety of documented evidence that fits in a larger web of evidence.

If you can't read the record and accept documented evidence then I couldn't prove the ocean was made of water by throwing you in it.

In the area of artwork:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_art
The oldest surviving art forms include small sculptures and paintings on rocks and in caves. There are very few known examples of art that date earlier than 40,000 years ago,

Weapons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon
Some of the earliest evidence for arrows are from ca. 20,000 BC in the Levant (the so-called 'Geometric Kebaran' period), made with several very small sharp pieces of stone embedded in an arrowshaft.

Buildings:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/662794.stm
"It does sound important," says Chris Stringer, head of the human origins group at London's Natural History Museum. "If this is correctly dated and correctly interpreted, it is the first good evidence from 500,000 years ago of a hut structure made by these people."

Before the discovery, the oldest remains of a structure were those at Terra Amata in France, from around 200,000 to 400,000 years ago.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/habit at/

Genetics:
DNA analysis traced human ancestry back to an African "Eve," setting off debate about how modern humans evolved. While there was general agreement that Homo erectus dispersed from Africa across Asia between 1 and 2 million years ago, what happened next remained a question. The "out-of-Africa" hypothesis contended that modern humans developed in Africa and migrated from there recently, driving H. erectus into extinction. Proponents of a "multiregional" hypothesis held that H. erectus populations evolved into modern humans in many regions, and that these groups later bred with each other and with groups that emigrated from Africa. The Eve study examined mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed only by mothers to their offspring. The researchers, Rebecca Cann, Mark Stoneking, and the late Allan Wilson, estimated that the ancestor of all surviving mt DNA types lived between 140,000 and 290,000 years ago. When did the migrations from Africa take place? They dated the oldest cluster of mtDNA types with no modern African representation to between 90,000 and 180,000 years ago. These populations might have left Africa at about that time, but the mtDNA data could not determine exactly when.

Tools:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/01 14_040114_siberianhumans.html
Russian researchers have found a wealth of hunting tools, which date back 31,000 years, along central Siberia's Yana River. The artifacts include hundreds of stone tools and flakes, as well as spear foreshafts made of rhinoceros horn and mammoth tusk.

Each of these pieces of evidence taken individually falsifies the assertion that it is true that man has only existed for 10,000 years.
There are hundreds, thousands, likely tens of thousands (more!) of pieces of evidence like this.

---

Either god is evil or twisted and wants us to ignore the actual evidence we see and believe some old books in preference over hard evidence or god is going to accept that we don't believe old books that are clearly wrong or there is no god anyway.

Re:other theories

[arminw]

.....Evolution is science.....

You wish it were so. Science is what can be experimentally determined in the lab or repeatedly observed and measured by anyone following the scientific method. First off what are your definitions of this thing called evolution? Is it the big bang? Is it the appearance of life from non-life? How about the progression from the goo by way of the zoo to you? Is that what you call evolution? The only kind of process that is also commonly called evolution is the FACT that bacteria, moths, birds and many other organisms can adapt to their environment. That is the ONLY facet of evolution that can be repeatedly duplicated and actually OBSERVED to be happening TODAY. That is what Darwin correctly observed and we still observe this today. Today's religion of evolution has been stretched far beyond what Darwin wrote in his seminal work, "Origin of the Species".

What really happened eons ago is pure conjecture and assumptions. There are many pseudo scientific words for faith or belief. I challenge you to open *any* so called scientific journal (dealing with origins) of any size at all and NOT find faith weasel words and phrases such as: If we assume; it is believed; speculates; the prevailing consensus is; could or may have; might be; thought to have; and other similar language whenever origins and the past are discussed. A sampling found all of the above expressions in many articles here:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dinosaurs

In science we want to deal with what we KNOW, and can repeatedly demonstrate, not what we believe or what could and might have been or not. When you show up in a court room, you will be asked what you personally witnessed. Nobody was there when the first reptile supposedly learned how to fly and then became a bird. Neither has anyone ever seen a transition creature between one kind of animal to another. Natural selection is a proven and observable mechanism. However it only works if there is already something to select for. Any animal breeder practices this selection process, but it has its limits beyond these processes cannot go. We can breed an almost unlimited variety of dogs, but they are still, every single one of them, without exception dogs. The same is true for other animal groups. Nobody has ever shown how new information can be generated by the sole interaction of energy and matter through time. All information ONLY comes from a mind. No body has ever shown otherwise.

Re:other theories

[buhatkj]

yeh i got it, so my refusal to believe in something not yet proven by science makes me stupid? have they ever been able to create a living organism from non-living matter in a lab?

i didn't think so. maybe when and if they do i will consider re-evaluating my opinion. until then, i remain skeptical.

Re:other theories

[rohan972]

Wrong: any information provided by a scientist is thoroughly tested by other scientists in the same field to see if they get the same results.

Well, for example, though many would say that there is no significant dissent among the scientific community about if evolution occured, there have certainly been, and continue to be differing opinions on how evolution happened. How could this happen if all the information is so thoroughly tested. String theory anyone? Black holes? Dark matter? Now scientists themselves may understand the incompleteness etc of various theories, the masses do not.

Richard Dawkins seems to think that science has disproved god and wrote "The God Delusion", Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project wrote "The Language of God". Both books got great reviews from those who agreed with them, and poor reviews from those who disagreed. (I haven't read either book, but reviews about both). These are both pieces of opinion that have been put forward on the "scientific authority" of the author without peer review. It makes no difference which is correct (if either).

What was this quote related to? If I am understanding it properly...

You seem to have missed the significance of this: "We take the side of science ... in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for the unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism."

A scientist claims the scientific community tolerates unsubstantiated just-so stories, and accepts this because of a prior (before evidence) commitment to materialism (a philosophy). Full quote from wikipedia has been edited out, and includes "Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Objective? Certainly not. It's a philosophy taught on the authority of science. Taught at least sometimes by people who have a stronger committment to materialism than to the rigorous application of the scientific method. In effect, a religion.

Re:other theories

[Bush Pig]

To quote Cunt Eastwood from some movie whose name eludes me: "Opinions are like arseholes - everybody has one".

Choosing Galileo in this instance is not useful. Galileo held a minority opinion which has turned out to be more or less correct. Otoh, evolution deniers are dumb cunts (I'm actually not a misogenist despite the language) who are wrong. Fuck 'em. They deserve the total lack of respect they get.

Re:other theories

[Bush Pig]

> ... gets a religion that isn't so easily proven false.

Hmmm ... he'll be looking for a loooooong time.

Re:other theories

[aaronxyz]

The "origin" of what life we have around us today is the Darwinian process. If you are speaking of abiogenesis than I agree with you. Probably just semantics. I think it is just better to use the term abiogenesis, rather than, "origin of life", since the latter can mean so many things.

Re:other theories

[JohnFluxx]

> Nobody has ever shown how new information can be generated by the sole interaction of energy and matter through time.

What about a snow flake? A fairly complex beautiful structure made from quite a simple process with simple ingredients.

I suspect though that you don't know what you mean by "new information". Try to define it as best you can, and I'll give you simple counter examples.

Re:other theories

[Bush Pig]

You're quoting Einstein _way_ out of context, and probably distorting his intended meaning. He wasn't either a theist or a deist, more like an atheistic-pantheist (sort of), ie, the universe itself is god.

Re:other theories

[arminw]

....What about a snow flake? A fairly complex beautiful structure......

Before you can ask about the very evident complexity, symmetry and order in a structure such as this, you have to consider that everything in this Universe operates according to consistent laws. We did not formulate these laws, nor can we do anything other than be subject to them. Unlike His moral law, God did not give us any choice about submitting to the laws of physics. The Snowflake and other crystals obey these laws as well. Just as all human laws arise in a mind, so too, the laws of physics came from a mind; the mind of the Creator God. These laws then are the information inherent in the inanimate creation. Living things contain vast quantities of additional information. There is no escaping it; there is a design and purpose evident in the Universe which means literally 'One Word', the Word issued from the mind of God. He is allowing us to discover these laws and use them for good. Too often, we use them for evil.

You have been given the immense privilege of seeking to know this one true God or you may ignore Him. The physical creation has not been given this high honor by its Creator, but must and does proclaim His greatness and splendor. Look into a telescope or microscope and you will see the intelligence of this Creator. We celebrate His coming this time of the year. We celebrate when the timeless, eternal Creator entered the fishbowl of His creation, limited Himself to time and space and became one of us. That is what Immanuel means "God with us". You too can be a wise man and seek Him, but He also allows you to choose to spurn His love through disbelief. May this Christmas be better than any other you have ever experienced as you ponder the reason for the season.

Merry Christmas and a truly Happy New Year
Armin

Re:other theories

[JohnFluxx]

How do you know that there is "additional information" (whatever that means, you haven't defined it) in a living thing?

Re:other theories

[Bush Pig]

The reason most evolutionists refuse to entertain the conceit that creationism is valid is because it isn't. It's nonsense.

Re:other theories

[arminw]

.....How do you know that there is "additional information" (whatever that means, you haven't defined it) in a living thing?.....

Living organisms, even so called "simple single cells" are incredibly complex. The more complicated an object, the more information is needed to build it. An airplane contains much more information than an oxcart. Living things store the information on construction and operation in the DNA which is analogous to a computer disk drive. Computers store binary and the DNA stores a four level digital code. Just as the code in a computer is distinct from the computer itself, so too is the code stored in the DNA. Information is what /. readers primarily deal with. The software and data stored in a computer or in DNA is immaterial and as such is not subject to the same constraints as material objects. Therefore software, information, is not subject to some of the limitations of material things.

The software determines the characteristics of the hardware in living things and in computers. Computers and living things contain two stores of information. One is the information in the computer's physical construction; the other is the OS, Applications and data. In living things, such as you, there is your body and all the knowledge it takes to build and operate it. Secondly, there is your mind that allows you to learn, think and then do all that you do based on these.

Everything, whether living or not is made from 92 known elements. The digital code in DNA represents the instruction on how to build and operate any particular life form, similar to the blueprints and instruction manuals for an airplane. Just as the instructions to build and operate any airplane originates in a human mind, so too, the instructions on how to build and run all living organisms originated in the mind of the creator - God. He also has given you a mind to understand and believe.

Re:other theories

[Derosian]

Mostly because the Bible was not meant to be edited. Look at the Mormons and it is obvious it wasn't meant to be edited. Yes, the bible in the English language does offer some contradictions of itself but the Greek does a better job of the Bible than English does. On top of all this the Bible actually supports micro evolution, which is the belief that small things change with species over time. What you will never get Christians to agree to though is the one thing that has not obviously been proven and that Darwinist just assume is right, which is macro evolution. Dinosaurs just didn't suddenly start growing feathers. You can't go from nothing to something. There are fossils of dinosaur like creatures with feathers sure, but those show completely feathered creatures, not a slow process from one to another.

Re:other theories

[Euler]

You are correct that oxygen is a big part of the debate about the Miller-Urey experiment. The evidence that there was oxygen from day 1 of the Earth isn't totally solid, though. There is evidence for several different early atmospheres. Wikipedia has a pretty good article about where the scientific debate stands today. The answer isn't perfectly clear either. When oxygen existed on Earth and how it got there is still an active scientific debate. That does not support creationism, it merely gives us more interesting questions to answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experimen t

and also:
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modloa d&name=News&file=article&sid=1676

Re:other theories

[arminw]

.....That does not support creationism....

Well it doesn't support evolution either. Your second link stated among other things that the sun was much dimmer in the past. The energy output of a star has more to do with its mass than anything else. The sun's mass is constantly getting smaller as some of it is converted into energy. That means the sun should have been hotter in the past.

Darwin never had anything to say about how life got started. Matter and energy alone cannot produce anything approaching the complexity of living cells. It also takes information. I can give you all the parts for building a car. However if you don't also get the instructions, it is not likely you will make a running automobile. Probably you'd break vital part or put something in wrong way round and that would be the end of your effort. A few amino acids are still a LONG way from making a complex protein, let alone a living cell.

Re:other theories

[Euler]

Stars do get hotter over time due to several mechanisms. Hydrogen fusion yields a buildup of helium in a star. Helium fusion 'burns' at a higher temperature due to its higher density. This can be measured by comparing a star's age with the spectral output of light to determine the star's composition and temperature. Science is about making a proposition and then supporting it with evidence, not estimations and assumptions. This is the fundamental rift between faith and science.

The really cool thing about organic compounds like DNA and amino acids is that you can put them together and they do amazing things with little outside help. That is how polymerase chain reaction (PCR) works in the lab to replicate DNA. Car parts are very immobile and only fit together in one engineered configuration. The fact that DNA and amino acid molocules floating in solution can autonomously perform their function is a good argument that they have been doing so on their own since the beginning of time as well.

DNA and evolution work sort of like the proverbial 'million monkeys on a million typewriters.' If you try enough combinations, eventually one will succeed. By contrast, building a car is absolutely about getting it right on the first or second try.

Here is a hypothetical question I've often asked myself... How does information originate? You state that nothing as complex as life could ever form spontanously. What is it about humans that allows us to create new information such as the design of a car in your example? Do we have some special ability that does not exist anyplace else?

Re:other theories

[arminw]

......How does information originate?.....

As I have stated repeatedly, ALL information originates in a mind. Nobody has ever shown information originating any place else or in any other way. Everything anyone of us ever does first is formulated in one or more minds. Yes, we are very special. We have been given a mind by which to understand the laws of the Universe and get a glimpse into the mind of the Creator. You are not a purposeless piece of matter that self-organized out of the primordial slime, but a special creation originating in the mind a God who loves you and wants to have a relationship with you. We all are created in the image and likeness of God. That includes a mind, with which we can conceive cars and other creative arts, just as God created.

Why is it so far out to assert that the information in the Universe also arose in a great mind? Any time there is pattern, laws, organization, there is also information. Your cleaned up orderly house has more information than your messy one. It takes the application of mind AND energy create order and harmony; energy alone is not enough. Millions of mindless monkeys on typewriters will not produce a Shakespeare play, at least not in the time imagined to be the age of the cosmos.

The Universe from the very smallest to the very largest dimensions is an orderly place, a place of structure. All our laws are products of minds and so are the laws of physics the product of a great Mind -- God. He formulated the laws by which everything operates and then proceeded to use these to make it happen. Scientists assume (believe) that the laws and constants of physics have never changed. This like denying human legislators the right to modify their own laws. God outright tell us in His Word, the Bible that this assumption is false. There have been fundamental discontinuities in creation. Science can only explore the Universe and its laws as they are now. Nobody except God, knows for sure how things were in the distant past.

Believer's Rights?

[MECC]

"The biology textbook generally refers to religion and the existence of God in a negative way. It infringes on believers' rights,"

I don't know anything about Russian law, but do religious groups have the right not to be dissed? Would that go for all religious groups, and non-religious groups too? Considering how insulting it is to have someone claim theirs is the only right way and everyone else is going to hell, I would think this a precedent that 'believers' wouldn't want to set.

Re:Believer's Rights?

[stoolpigeon]

I don't know anything about Russian law, but do religious groups have the right not to be dissed? Would that go for all religious groups, and non-religious groups too?
 
I don't know about Russia, but I do believe more than a few european countries do have laws that limit speech about religion, race, etc. I am thinking about a recent case of a Swedish pastor who came under charges for asserting that homosexuality was wrong. I would think with laws like that on the books, this may get more of a hearing than somewhere that doesn't have such limits. Like I said, I don't know about Russia, but it seems it is possible.

Re:Believer's Rights?

[Salvance]

I'd agree if the creationist view had any scientific basis whatsoever. Science classes try to only teach theories that are rooted in verified hypotheses. If the creationists can provide some scientific fact, instead of just saying "it says so in the bible, and the bible is always right, therefore it's true", then schools would be much warmer to teaching intelligent design/creationism/etc.

Re:Believer's Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me make a few things clear:
1. The textbook does NOT refer to religion in negative way. Being a Biology textbook, it ignores religion completely.
2. The Russian law says nothing about not dissing religious groups. It does say that inciting inter-racial or inter-religious violence is punishable, but dissing is completely ok.
3. The girl who has "sued" the school is not religious in any special way. In fact, she dresses and looks like a goth. The lawsuit itself has been initiated by her father, working for some small PR outfit and in bad need for publicity. Now, thanks to the lawsuit, he has got onto national TV, if only for a few moments.

The whole thing is a publicity stunt and everybody including most journalists acknowledges that.

Re:Believer's Rights?

[MECC]

Some links would be cool...

Re:Believer's Rights?

[Cyberax]

No problem:
http://news.ntv.ru/99758/
http://www.lawlinks.ru/view_news_spb.php?id=29775 ...

There's a small problem: you need to read Russian :)

Re:Believer's Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Russia only the president has the right of not being dissed

Re:Believer's Rights?

[Itchyeyes]

This is essentially what the whole intelligent design movement is about, trying to provide a scientific basis for the biblical story of creation. The problem is that with such a strong and specific agenda behind it, it's inherently bad science.

Re:Believer's Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if it does discuss religion negatively, I'd think in the US it would fall afoul of Freedom of Religion issues, given that it's being used in a public school. In any case, I would be looking for another textbook as any discussion of God or religion is really entirely irrelevant to the subject of biology and would make me doubt the book's quality.

Re:Believer's Rights?

[Moofie]

I might couch it a little differently, but I think you're right. The ID movement is about clouding the issues, and dressing up Creationism as a scientific theory.

You can put a pig in a tutu...

Re:Believer's Rights?

[anakog]

I was appalled to read in the first article that the author thinks scientists still don't know whether the theory of evolution is right. Luckily, the second article sounded as the kind of coverage this idiocy deserves to get.

Re:Believer's Rights?

[mapkinase]

"Considering how insulting it is to have someone claim theirs is the only right way and everyone else is going to hell"

Since when religion is part of curriculum in Russia? I know there are plans to introduce obligatory Orthodox church classes, but I do vehemently oppose them in public schools.

Theory

[DrugCheese]

A giant meatball slipped off that plate and thus our earth was born.

Re:Theory

[eln]

Your ideas intrigue me, and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Theory

[Qubit]

A giant meatball slipped off that plate and thus our earth was born.

Are you trying to say that the Earth was created when the FSM's balls dropped?

Speaking of which, maybe man was created when God went through puberty and...umm...you know, did a little too much "one-handed websurfing". I mean, doesn't the bible say that he sowed his seed all over the land?

Re:Theory

[Ngarrang]

I believe you might be insulting the followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster http://www.venganza.org/. His Noodily Appendage did not "slip" the meatball from the plate, it was thrust forcefully because it was not worth to touch the plate of His Noodiliness.

Re:Theory

[Captain Splendid]

Speaking of which, maybe man was created when God went through puberty and...umm...you know, did a little too much "one-handed websurfing". I mean, doesn't the bible say that he sowed his seed all over the land?

That's disgusting! We need to get this filth off the shelves! Won't somebody think of the children?

Re:Theory

[ArcherB]

A giant meatball slipped off that plate and thus our earth was born.

Fascinating! Where to I send my dollar?

Re:Theory

[gardyloo]

Did it happen when somebody sneezed? Was it all covered with cheese? Was there a floor and a door? Give us testable hypotheses, man!

Re:Theory

[drinkypoo]

I don't know about that but any good Stephenson fanboy knows that thousands of years before christianity was even thought of, Enki created rivers when he whacked off. Everything in christianity was ripped off from some prior religion. Christianity has really only one differentiating feature: The golden rule. It goes beyond simply saying "don't do things to other people that you don't want done to you" - it specifically says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It differs in that the admonishment seen as being the core of christ-oriented christianity is proactive - it exhorts you to DO something. This is especially amusing given that christianity is an orthodox religion, not an orthoprax one - christianity states that belief is enough to get you into heaven, while orthodox religions focus on practice rather than doctrine. Amusingly, this means that there is more similarity between Judaism and Islam than Judaism and Christianity.

Re:Theory

[ozbird]

A giant meatball slipped off that plate and thus our earth was born.

"This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere^W DrugCheese. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes."

Re:Theory

[rthille]

Of course, the problem with the golden rule is I don't want the neighborhood masochist tying _me_ up and beating me an dripping hot wax on my privates...

And the alternative of "do unto others as they would have you do unto them", is that I don't really want to tie the masochist up and beat her and drip hot wax on to her privates either...well, maybe if she's really hot...

Re:Theory

[b.burl]

aND wHERE dO i SEND mY doughnutions?

Re:Theory

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Funny, I thought that the core of Christ-oriented Christianity was Christ...

Re:Theory

[drinkypoo]

Of course, the problem with the golden rule is I don't want the neighborhood masochist tying _me_ up and beating me an dripping hot wax on my privates...

The unofficial slogan of the BDSM movement in the US is "Safe, Sane, and Consensual". Part of Do Unto Others is that you don't want people doing things to you without your consent. What you don't do is just as important as what you do.

The frivolous lawsuit virus

[BDPrime]

Sweet! It looks like Russians have caught the frivolous lawsuit virus. I guess we must have won the Cold War after all.

Article even has a slant!

[ArcherB]

From TFA:

In the United States, several lawsuits challenging the theory that says humans descended from apes have been filed in courts...

Evolution does not claim that man evolved from apes, but that man and apes share a common ancestor, as do all creatures. Just man and the ape's ancestors were a little more recent that, say, the common ancestor between man and jellyfish.

Disclaimer: I'm a Christian and believe in ID myself. However, I feel that "Darwinism" should be taught in schools. Who am I to say how God created man. I feel that evolution is more of a miracle than Him simply saying "Let it Be" anyway! Just my $0.02

Re:Article even has a slant!

[JohnSearle]

Who am I to say how God created man

Or perhaps, who are you to say whether God created man...?

- John

Re:Article even has a slant!

[wasabii]

Curiously, how does one "believe in ID?" Seriously, explain your view.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[monoqlith]

Humans are now technically viewed great apes( part of the family Hominidae). Humans and chimpanzees are very close relatives and share a common ancestor, who was also an ape, 4 to 7 million years ago.

What evoluton does not claim:

1. Jesus was a monkey.
2. God didn't create the planet or the universe.
3. God doesn't exist.
4. Natural selection is random.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[monoqlith]

Excuse me, the common ancestor was ape-like.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[ArcherB]

Or perhaps, who are you to say whether God created man...?

As I stated, I am a Christian, which means I know that God created man. As a humble Christian, I willfully admit that I don't know how God created man, which means that I am in no position to tell anyone that they are wrong, or what they should teach in schools, and especially what they should believe themselves. All I ask is that you grant me the same respect and stop trying to tell me what I should be believing or that my belief system is somehow not compatible with reality. Such an argument would be futile anyhow as I've already claimed ignorance to the how, just not the who. And quite frankly, no one can prove the WHO one way or another anyhow.

Faith and intelligence are in no way mutually exclusive.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[ArcherB]

Curiously, how does one "believe in ID?" Seriously, explain your view.

Since you asked:
It's quite simple really. God created the heavens and the earth and all the oceans, seas, lands, and plants and creatures. What is not explained is how. That's where science comes in.

Don't take my word for it. The best philosophers in history have argued for and against first cause. I'm a mental midget compared to some of these guys. And unless your name is Descartes (pronounced Day-Cart), I'm guessing you are as well. No offense meant, of course.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[michaelapainter]

What if intelligent design and evolution are both correct? Intelligent design could have been the beginning of evolution. If a simple entity was created and designed to evolve, both theories would be right.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[cje]

What evoluton does not claim:

2. God didn't create the planet or the universe.

This is, of course, completely true.

However, if you believe that the entire universe is only a few thousand years old, as many extreme Christians do, then you could make the case that biological evolutionary common descent implies that God didn't create the planet and the universe (although, in truth, the same could be said about pretty much any branch of natural science). The problem is that a lot of the afore-mentioned extreme Christians have done a pretty good job of passing along many of these misconceptions to their more modern and moderate brethren. The best solution to this is to make sure that people are continually educated (through posts like yours) about what evolution actually entails.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Citizen of Earth]

Faith and intelligence are in no way mutually exclusive.

They are on the specific articles of absolute faith. How can two Christians have differing articles of absolute faith unless at least one of them is wrong?

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Coryoth]

What evoluton does not claim: ...
2. God didn't create the planet or the universe.
3. God doesn't exist. ...

You are quite correct that the theory of evolution makes no claims as to God's existence, the origins of the universe, or even the actual origins of life. One of the reasons it raises the ire of many religious people, besides contradicting literal readings of their chosen holy book, is that it it goes a long way to refuting one of the remaining strong arguments for the existence of God, the Argument from Design. The Argument from Design essentially says "Given how remarkably well suited and pieced together everything is, how designed it looks, the only reasnable explanation is that it has been designed by some intelligence". For a long time, up until Darwin really, this was a devastatingly strong argument for the existence of God. The great Scottish philosopher Hume shredded the argument but, in failing to find any better explanation for the appearance of design, eventually capitulated - he could see the argument was flawed, but couldn't offer anything better in it's stead. Then along came Darwin with the theory of evolution by natural selection, and we have an entirely credible and reasonable explanation for the appearance of design: the hard work of R&D is done by the blind, mindless, but most certainly not random, process of natural selection; given enough time the appearance of design is the natural result.

Of course evolution says nothing about the universe, just the appearance of design amongst life. However, in refuting the case of design with regard to life, and with Hume's powerful critique of the Argument from Design, one has to be more cautious with regard to playing the "finely tuned universe" Argument from Design card - sure, we don't have an alternative explanation for it yet (though there are a few potential candidates - see Smolin's evolutionary universe model), but we know that explanations for the appearance of design that don't involve a creator can be found from the example of evolution. The fact that alternative explanations exist means the appearance of design is no longer enough to conclude the existence of God.

What this has meant is that there really aren't any solid rational arguments for the existence of God, and a lot of people miss that, hence the desire to fight or try and discredit the theory of evolution. Instead arguments for the existence of God must now take the form of emotional, or personal arguments, which while effective and powerful for those who are receptive to religion, are decidedly unconvincing for those who harbour doubt or are skeptical. Ultimately I tend to see those who feel the need to discredit evolution as people who have doubts about their faith: emotional arguments are not enough for them.

(Disclaimer: I am a (weak) atheist; I am naturally skeptical, and certainly haven't had any religious experiences that might convince me)

Re:Article even has a slant!

[metlin]

As I stated, I am a Christian, which means I know that God created man.

No, as a Christian, you believe that God created man. There is a difference.

Belief does not imply knowledge (read up on discourses on epistemology etc).

All I ask is that you grant me the same respect and stop trying to tell me what I should be believing or that my belief system is somehow not compatible with reality.

Aye. I fully agree with you - but only as long as it is stated that it is a belief and not a fact. Faith and facts are entirely different entities.

Faith and intelligence are in no way mutually exclusive.

That is arguable. Faith and facts, however, are mutually exclusive, unless substantiated with reproducible, empirical, scientific evidence.

I may believe in a purple dragon, however that does not imply that a purple dragon exists. And moreover, as an intelligent man, it is my opinion that because of the lack of any reproducible, empirical, scientific evidence, the probability of the exitence of a purple dragon is minimal. Therefore, without sufficient evidence (despite the appearance of dragons in several pieces of literature), I would have to say that I do not particularly believe in a purple dragon, or more precisely that the existence of such a creature is highly improbable.

Similarly, one's belief in something is rather independent of one's intelligent thoughts on the topic.

Just because one is intelligent in other domains (e.g. arts, music, maths, literature, biology, physical and natural sciences etc.) does not necessarily imply that they are intelligent when it comes to what they believe in.

As a physicist, I may be excellent in solving differential equations, however that does nothing for my skills in biology. Or painting. Or music.

Likewise, intelligence exhibited in other domains does not necessarily imply the application intelligence when it comes to faith.

Cheers.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Anonymous Coward]

Faith and intelligence are in no way mutually exclusive.

Christians, UFO nuts, and others of their ilk keep saying things like that even though they're completely incorrect, and then expect everybody to back off and not dispute the flaky beliefs they love to try and shove down our throats.

However I can cite plenty of evidence which disproves your claim; You will have a harder time supporting your own stance. Some people also love to claim that science and faith (or religion) aren't mutually exclusive either, yet even a child can see the total illogic of that argument too.

Genuinely intelligent people only accept as proven those things which are verifiable. Everything else is an unsupported hypothesis at best. You "christian scientists" will flame me for pointing that out, but that's just another piece of evidence suggesting a lack of genuine intellect. :)

Re:Article even has a slant!

[JohnSearle]

All I ask is that you grant me the same respect and stop trying to tell me what I should be believing or that my belief system is somehow not compatible with reality.

I have not told you what to believe in, I was merely stating that alternatives exist. The way you were writing was as if you denied that. I'm Agnostic, so please don't assume everyone is out to attack your belief system.

And quite frankly, no one can prove the WHO one way or another anyhow.

Well this is my point exactly. Since you can't prove it, I'm forced to believe that you don't KNOW it. Knowing implies a some degree of certainty. I believe that you BELIEVE that God created man, but I'm also sure that you are not certain of that 'fact.' For you to state that you are 100% certain only makes me shake my head. As you've said, 'faith and intelligence are in no way mutually exclusive,' and one mark of intelligence is being open to alternatives.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[bunratty]

They might well both be correct. However, we have overwhelming evidence to support the evolution of life on Earth, but no hard evidence to support the existence of an intelligent designer. Therefore, evolution is a scientific theory and should be taught in a classroom, but conjectures about an intelligent designer should likely be kept out of basic science classes.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[wolfemi1]

As I stated, I am a Christian, which means I know that God created man

I would disagree. I think you believe God created man. The problem is that, given your statement, it doesn't appear that you have any doubt whatsoever as to the truth of your conviction. This is a good demonstration of faith.

Faith and intelligence are in no way mutually exclusive.

I would have to disagree again here. In adopting faith, you have closed the door on any kind of reevaluation of anything you already have faith in. Given that you know that no one can prove the "who", why do you "know" which one it is? It seems, contrary to what you said, that faith and intelligence (defined here as a search for truth, or a logical explanation of an event, or a greater understanding of the world) are inherently incompatible.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[gardyloo]

What if intelligent design and evolution are both correct? Intelligent design could have been the beginning of evolution. If a simple entity was created and designed to evolve, both theories would be right.

    Yep. But, again, this seems to sidestep any criterion of testability or falsifiability. So it doesn't get around the problem that anti-ID people have with ID in the first place. It just shoves the whole creation bit to an earlier, murkier time.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[acgrissom]

Intelligent design is a philosophical inference. What many fail to realize is that natural selection is likewise a philosophical inference. Natural selection is a model -- a model which usually works quite well. That's why it is a theory. It is an abstraction anthropomorphizes nature: it employs sentient qualities like "selection" to an impersonal environment. (See Lewontin's book, Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA.) Natural selection and intelligent design are by no means mutually exclusive. Naturalism and intelligent design are mutually exclusive, but not natural selection and intelligent design. True science, I contend, only deals with data. Any inferences made from that data are just that: inferences. We must, I think, distinguish between scientific laws, such as gravity, and scientific theories, such as natural selection. The former is a subset of the latter, but the latter can contain some very shaky things, many of which have little or no support, or are simply convenient models. Natural selection is one example. Nature doesn't "select" things. Nature doesn't have a consciousness (I assume). That doesn't mean it can't be a good model; it's just that I don't even think it's pure science, as much as it is a westernized abstraction based on western economic principles dealing with competition.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[roman_mir]

As I stated, I am a Christian, which means I know that God created man. - your belief system tells you that god created man, but since there is nothing scientific about it (it is not possible to theorize about god in any intelligent manner,) the idea is not falsifiable, there is no way in this universe to know that god created man.

As an atheist I know that man was created in the normal course of evolution of this Universe but I make no statements about the origins of the Universe itself. However again, as an atheist I know that in order for you to say that you know something, you better be able to support your argument with more than just statements based on religious faith.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Citizen of Earth]

The best philosophers in history have argued for and against first cause. I'm a mental midget compared to some of these guys.

I think that history's great thinkers might reach different conclusions if they knew what science knows today. Aristotle, for instance, was provably wrong about lots of things.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[jd]

I would tend to agree with you on that. Some words tend to be emotively interpreted, rather than understood for what they actually mean, which tends to be a problem with these sorts of discussions. For myself, I am not interested in literal interpretations of any specific Biblical text or a fight over which Bible the interpretation should be from - those are not useful discussions, as best as I can tell. No two individuals are going to agree on matters of faith, even if they are nominally of the same faith, and science is wholly orthogonal to faith EXCEPT when faith is used to bias or taint science.

Science is a regimen of basing theories on data, then testing those theories by obtaining data that is wholly independent of that used to derive the theory. When we talk of someone abusing science, falsifying data, or whatever, that is not a case of science tainting faith, but rather of the prejudices - and therefore faith - of the person doing the work tainting the science. Science is incapable of creating prejudice, even when it is subject to it.

When people talk of science and religion as not necessarily being in conflict, this is entirely correct. In fact, faith can be extremely valuable in science as it allows you to let go of the distractions, the imponderables and the unknowables. Early civilizations did well in science because they could put everything outside of their ability to measure, control or quantify in the realms of Somebody Else's Problem, and you often see the same happening in modern science. We can only model complex phenomena at an abstract level because we know that the details - even those we don't yet have the science to know - are taken care of "somehow". We don't have to know the "somehow" so long as we know that it's not our problem to know. Who really cares, ultimately, what the "somehow" is? Who really cares, ultimately, what any individual uses as a "somehow" for themselves, so long as there really is no harm and there really is a benefit?

If you want to believe in zero, one, many God(s), or (as the Buddhists do) that the Universe and all that exists inside and outside of it is merely a delusion, and it is beneficial to you and all around you for you to do so, then your belief is not my problem. By definition, it's so much not my problem that I'm gaining from you believing it and would cause far more harm than good to all concerned to persuade you otherwise.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Anonymous Coward]

As I stated, I am a Christian, which means I know that God created man.

It's that type of lame brained idiotic mewling that really turns decent people away from your wacky beliefs.

You know nothing of the sort.
That's a fact.
Saying you do is a lie that you tell with full knowledge that you are being intentionally dishonest.

If it were possible for you to know that, then there would be one religion, everybody would be a believer, and there wouldn't be the massive clusterfuck created entirely by your god's inability to deliver a simple message.

So, no, you do not know a damn thing about god or gods.
You have chosen to start believing in some arbitrary nonsense which has no rational basis whatsoever.
You continue to believe it in the face of no evidence whatsoever and even in the face of the massive contradictions inherent therein.

So, in the future, try being honest with yourself and those around you.

All I ask is that you grant me the same respect and stop trying to tell me what I should be believing or that my belief system is somehow not compatible with reality.

How about you develop a belief system that is compatible with reality?
It's pretty simple. Far easier than trying to hold together all that contradictory bullshit that is your faith.
Why should rational, thinking people have to tread on eggshells around you becasue you chose to buy into some ridiculous nonsense without one single sane reason for believing it?

Heck, why don't we leave NAMBLA alone as well?

Re:Article even has a slant!

[drinkypoo]

Some people also love to claim that science and faith (or religion) aren't mutually exclusive either, yet even a child can see the total illogic of that argument too.

Uh, what?

Religion deals with the why. Science deals with the what and the how and sometimes even the when. There is no conflict.

Genuinely intelligent people only accept as proven those things which are verifiable.

Religious faith isn't about proof. It does not depend on it. Religious faith is when you believe something to be true because someone said so.

I agree that doesn't seem very intelligent.

On the other hand, if it turns out sometime down the road that it's all true, many of us will look very silly. :) But then you can't hedge your bets by acting like you believe, because if there is a god he'll know you're full of shit.

Bottom line: Religion is culture. It's something you were raised into and few people are fortunate enough to get over their upbringing - look at how many of us become our parents.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Nopal]

Nope, it only discredits design as far as a traditional views of what we have historically understood by design. However, our very understanding of "design" is changing. How can you prove of disprove that a "random" occurence wasn't meant to be part of the 'design'? Random techniques are used to create purposeful designs every day (an example: http://www.netsci.org/Science/Screening/feature09. html). Unfortunately, it's a little bit too easy to commit the folly of ascribing purely human abilities to something that is by nature undefined, and that many of us call God. Hell, the very concept of 'random' in the context of someting that is undefined and infinite makes little sense. By nature, neither God nor the way he/she/it accomplishes things can be defined. That's why it's purely a matter of faith. You can certainly counter by claiming that people are imagining everything, and that's your prerogative (I happen to believe). You cannot, however, simply "dicredit" something that you can't even define by using a concept within a very limited scope (the scope of "design" as it has traditionally pertained only to human rationality).

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Blkdeath]

It's quite simple really. God created the heavens and the earth and all the oceans, seas, lands, and plants and creatures.

Which God(s)?

Face it, you belong to the worlds' oldest and greatest money making machine - church. How much of your annual earnings go towards your pastor's new Jaguar? Er, I mean, towards the spreading of the faith to more sources of income ... or, sorry, how much of your hard earned money goes towards your church?

Don't take my word for it. The best philosophers in history have argued for and against first cause.

Some of the best philosophers also argued that the sun revolves around the Earth and that said Earth was flat. That doesn't mean I'll stick my head in the sand and blindly believe the words from a centuries-old book collection that's been translated several times (surely with no undue bias) from its original languages that blatantly contradicts itself, has more interpretations in modern day than any other book in existance, and was written by people who didn't understand a thing about micro-organisms and how they relate to the proper way to cook pork.

If I'm going to chose a fairy tale to believe in, I think I'll stick with the Cat In The Hat, thank-you very much. Meanwhile, I'll keep my mind open and let genuine reproducible science teach me about the world around me.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[scheming daemons]

Religion deals with the why. Science deals with the what and the how and sometimes even the when. There is no conflict.

Religion is supposed to deal with the "why". But most fundamentalists in most modern religions claim divine knowledge of the what, how, and when also.

The book of Genesis is not about the "why"... it is the what, how, and when to many misguided fundamentalist Christians and Jews.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[fbjon]

There's one thing that puzzles me, why do some extreme creationists believe the universe is only a few thousand years old? Is there an actual, clear reference in the bible or is it traditional humbug? Looking at the article in Wikipedia it seems there's no sound explanation, or rather, a circular explanation. Evolution cannot be because the earth is young, and the earth is conveniently young in order to "suppress" evolution.

And, how many actually believe this anyway...

Re:Article even has a slant!

[mark-t]

there is no way in this universe to know that god created man.

*IF* god created man, then there certainly is a way.... if God told them himself.

Of course, then we end up with a problem of people not believing that God told this person, especially since there's a lot of people that don't even believe in God in the first place.

But just because people doubt a person's credibility, doesn't mean it's impossible for a person to know the truth for him or herself.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Anonymous Coward]

What evolut[i]on does not claim:
1. Jesus was a monkey.

Disclaimer: bad flamebait follows...

But creationists claim that banana was designed with God's favorite species in mind so that they can easily handle it. Nobody can argue that banana is the favorite meal of monkeys so it must be designed for them. Everybody knows that God created his favorite species according to himself. Jesus was (is) the Gods son, therefore:

Jesus must be a chimp.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Maxo-Texas]

As a well respected follower of the copernican of the universe, I KNOW that the earth is the center of the universe and everything else rotates around it. That's the way god created it.

I simply ask that you respect my ability to believe as I choose and not present all of these astronomy "theories" as facts in astronomy classes since they contradict the facts of my belief.

I know we are not that common today but at one point, most christians believed this way so I'm sure eventually they'll see through the lies of all these "scientists" who claim to have evidence to the contrary.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Alsee]

there really aren't any solid rational arguments for the existence of God, and a lot of people miss that, hence the desire to fight or try and discredit the theory of evolution.

Well I wish they would quit the crap against evolution and attack optics instead, going back to pointing at rainbows as proof of God and His Biblical covenant not to flood the earth again.

-

Re:Article even has a slant!

[roman_mir]

Many people believe that god talked to them, but there is no way to prove such a statement. Even if the person truly believes that god talked to him/her, it is not actually an indication that it was god and not just their imagination.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Anonymous Coward]

That is arguable. Faith and facts, however, are mutually exclusive, unless substantiated with reproducible, empirical, scientific evidence.

This is only true if you have all the facts. Are you telling me that you have all the facts concerning how mankind came to be?

 

I may believe in a purple dragon, however that does not imply that a purple dragon exists.

Nor does this imply that a purple dragon doesn't exist. I've seen way too many posts that imply that because someone believes in ID, it couldn't have happened.

 

No, as a Christian, you believe that God created man. There is a difference.

Belief does not imply knowledge (read up on discourses on epistemology etc).

Disclaimer: IANAE(I am not an epistemologist) but looking at the entry on the all-knowing wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology it looks like there are a couple of thoughts of what comprise knowledge, I would say you shouldn't be telling somebody they don't know what they say they know.

Part 2 of this is, many religious people have experiences which, to them, are proof of what they believe (i.e. a vision of God would be proof that He exists.) And while you might not take that as proof, I would think that is a valid reason for him to say "I know God exists. (I know thats not what the GP said, I'm merely giving an example.) You could probably give me any 'fact' that you 'know' and I could come up with a couple of ways to show you that you don't really 'know' what you 'know' (granted one of them might be: you didn't really see what you think you saw, aliens implanted that memory into your brain so you would look like a complete moron on slashdot.)

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Coryoth]

There's one thing that puzzles me, why do some extreme creationists believe the universe is only a few thousand years old? Is there an actual, clear reference in the bible or is it traditional humbug?

In theory the date is arrived at via calculations based on the explicit lineages described in the bible. In practice the calculations are rather dodgy and inexact, and when you combine that with the fact that lineages in the bible are hairy (consider the two very different lineages provided for Joseph for example), and the least bit of "not absolutely literal" interpretation the whole thing looks sketchy. Still, if you want to take everything literally then 10,000 years old is the basic lineage calculation, plus a healthy dose of leeway. You do have to be awfully literal to get that out of the bible though.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Coryoth]

I think we need to be clear. The theory of evolution discredits the Argument from Design, but does not falsify God. The theory of evolution demonstrates that the appearance of design can be achieved without an intelligent agent to produce the design. The strength and power of the Argument from Design was, quite simply, that prior to the theory of evolution it was inconcievable (in the literal sense that no-one could conceive of a process) to produce appearance of design without a designer. Thus the Argument from Design works as "the appearance of design exists, ergo a designer must exist". The theory of evolution takes away the entailment: the appearance of design no longer requires a designer; a designer is not necessary. You can argue that a designer is still possible, but that was never the argument. Claiming "the appearance of design exists, ergo is is possible that a designer might exist" is rather moot: you can leap straight to the conclusion with no prior argument necessary, and it fails to enforce any conclusion on existence.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[ArcherB]

Religion is supposed to deal with the "why". But most fundamentalists in most modern religions claim divine knowledge of the what, how, and when also.

The book of Genesis is not about the "why"... it is the what, how, and when to many misguided fundamentalist Christians and Jews.

There are wackos on the far reaches of everything from religion to politics to cars to sports. Saying all Muslims are terrorists, all Democrats are Communists or all Republicans are bigots is applying a stereotype on the majority that is based on the minority fringes.

The Bible states that God said "Let there be X", and there was. This is a bit vague in my opinion and does not go into the how. It is up to science to decide what happened between the divine decree and the actual existence. Science determines the how. The "Why" is up to philosophers, and theologians to work out. (as you pointed out that religion was supposed to do)

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Moofie]

Right, because intelligent people are never wrong. Only people of faith are wrong.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[M. Baranczak]

I think it started with some medieval theologians who used the Bible to reconstruct the entire family tree from Adam and Eve to the Virgin Mary's family, which in turn allowed them to estimate when Adam and Eve lived. The whole thing's pretty damn shaky even if you postulate that the Old Testament is literally true.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Moofie]

If they were both scientific theories, you might have a point. Since one is a scientific theory, and the other is a marketing ploy, I think you do not have a point.

Intelligent Design is not a theory. It is make-believe.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[soft_guy]

The book of Genesis is not about the "why"... it is the what, how, and when to many misguided fundamentalist Christians and Jews. This is precisely why I believe that the abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), are fundamentally flawed. And this is why I went looking for another belief system and found one that I liked: atheism.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Nopal]

The "appearance of design" is what modern random design techniques already accomplish, except of course that there is nothing random about it's functionality and goals(for example, chemicals and land use can be "designed" by more or less steering a random process). In some cases, "random design" is merely another name for the "appearance of design." In a very real sense, we can design "purposeful randomness."

The fact that we understand how random design works does nothing to invalidate the concept that the universe may be designed, complete with its "randomness." I must concede, however, that it does invalidate the traditional "intelligent design" theories that are based on a static designer (static in the sense that it just designed and created all complexity at once). What an understanding of "random design" does not tell us, is if the entire "random" creation process (e.g. evolution), does or does not have an ultimate goal and hence, it's a process designed with a purpose from the beginning. In this sense, an intelligent designer can't be proven nor disproven because once again it just becomes a matter of faith.

To put it simply, just because the theory of evolution does not require an active designer, it does not mean that the process has not been designed to yield specific goals, similarly to how we use randomness as a design tool today.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[roscivs]

No, as a Christian, you believe that God created man. There is a difference.

Belief does not imply knowledge (read up on discourses on epistemology etc).

Don't be such an ass. If you had read up on discourses on epistemology, you'd realize that under a strict epistemological definition, the only thing you can know (in that sense of the word) is your own existence. You can't know anything else, be it God's existence, cause and effect, the scientific method, or that 2+2=4.

Perhaps, as a Christian, his fundamental axioms are different from yours. Or perhaps your axioms are very similar, but he has had different experiences in his life that lead him to different conclusions. But if you're going to go around picking on religious types insisting that they don't use the word "know" to describe their beliefs, then you better stop saying that you "know" that Antarctica exists, or that your mother gave birth to you, or that you and chimpanzees share an ancestor.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Coryoth]

To put it simply, just because the theory of evolution does not require an active designer, it does not mean that the process has not been designed to yield specific goals, similarly to how we use randomness as a design tool today.

Sure, but then there is no reason to assume that it does either. The question is why should you assume a goal or a designer? Previously you could assume a designer - it was mandatory in fact - because nobody could conceive of any other explanation. Now we know that it isn't necessary. Sure, it doesn't obviate the possibility, but gravity as curvature of spacetime as a theory doesn't obviate the possibility of miniature invisible tartan elephants pushing everything around. The reality is that there is no reason to suppose any goal, or designer, unless you are predisposed to do so - there is no longer an argument that can be made from design to suggest that God exists. This is my only real point, and you seem determined to ignore it.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[misanthrope101]

I feel that evolution is more of a miracle than Him simply saying "Let it Be"

So if slower antelopes get eaten more often, and faster ones leave more offspring, and the antelope population as a whole now is a bit faster, that's a miracle? If plants with a genetic variation that gives them more resistance to an herbicide leave more descendants than plants without the variation, that's a miracle? Your threshold for divine intervention doesn't seem to be very high. But oddly, a hypothetical, mysterious super-being who guides every cellular division seems more plausible to you than reproductive advantage leading to genetic change. You are, I must admit, a bit odd. Leprechauns must seem downright prosaic to you.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Nopal]

I am not determined to ignore your point, a point that you made well in your second post. Your original post merely claimed that the whole concept of intelligent design is somehow invalid because of random design. When in fact, "the appearance of design" does nothing to prove or disprove if there is a designer.

As far as a "source" not being needed, one is not needed for anything. For example, you can be well behaved and moral without having a God, too. However, in my opinion the likelyhood that the majority of humanity will behave in the same way if they did not believe in a God is very unlikely. (In my opinion, the very fact that we can easily agree on the existance of the very concept of what is "good" or "bad" is unlikey without God, but I digress).

As far as your cheap shot with little elephants, surely you are well aware that little elephants can be disproven. That can't be the case with God as a source (for "random design", for morality, for the universe, etc.). As I've said before, you are very welcome to make fun by raising the argument that people simply imagine things, but that's neither here nor there in regards to faith.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Nopal]

I should say "no source is needed for anything relative" rather than a "source is not needed for anything". There are some fixed concepts that can't exist without the existance of a God.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Copid]

What evolut[i]on does not claim:
1. Jesus was a monkey.

Disclaimer: bad flamebait follows...

But creationists claim that banana was designed with God's favorite species in mind so that they can easily handle it. Nobody can argue that banana is the favorite meal of monkeys so it must be designed for them. Everybody knows that God created his favorite species according to himself. Jesus was (is) the Gods son, therefore:

Jesus must be a chimp. Tsk, tsk. What would Freud say about this line of argument?

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Nopal]

Correction: I should've said "no source is needed for anything relative" rather than a "source is not needed for anything". There are some fixed concepts that can't exist without the existance of a God, but that's a separate discussion.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Coryoth]

As far as your cheap shot with little elephants, surely you are well aware that little elephants can be disproven. That can't be the case with God as a source (for "random design", for morality, for the universe, etc.).

The disprovability of the minature invisible tartan elephants really rather depends on the exact nature of the elephants, just as the disprovability of God rather depends on the nature of God (a God that is active in making repeated, predictable, measurable interventions in the operation of the universe, for instance, is falsfiable - that doesn't falsify God as something less actively involved, but it does falsify a particular conception of God). If the elephants are completely undetectable via any means and are completely consistent in their behaviour which, by sheer chance, turns out to be utterly indistinguishable from a successful merging of general relativity and quantum mechanics... well you'll have a hard time disproving such elephants. If you choose to believe in God for personal reasons then that is your choice, but the fact that your particular conception of God is unable to be disproved is not terribly convincing as an argument. There are a whole host of things which are both possible (not ruled out by anything) and not disprovable which I fully expect you have no belief in.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[spitzak]

Designing a universe where life will evolve, especially if you assumme that evolution must lead to a "man in his own form", is FAR more complex and difficult than just making the finished universe. Which do you think is more difficult: writing a computer game, or writing a program that creates an equally-good computer game? People who argue against evolution are basically saying that their god is too stupid and incapable to be able to create evolution, that is basically what their arguments amount to. That should be considered blashphamy (sp?) by their own religion!

Re:Article even has a slant!

[ArcherB]

->As I stated, I am a Christian, which means I know that God created man.

No, as a Christian, you believe that God created man. There is a difference.

Belief does not imply knowledge (read up on discourses on epistemology etc).

If you believe something strongly enough, it is really no longer a belief, is it? Though I do have to admit that I had to go back and edit the sentence, changing "believe" to "know".

Still, your point is valid and well taken.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[mark-t]

Of course, but the lack of proof does not mean that it is not true.

But then, can you that the sun actually rose today, and that the universe didn't just pop into existence as it appears now, complete with living people's memories and everything, as if it had been here for many billions of years? Technically, no... nobody can.* My sensibilities, however, and many others as well, do not allow us to readily accept this possibility, because what we accept to be our own supposedly real experiences simply do not permit us to. We "know" it as to the extent that it can be "known", but no more.

It is not entirely dissimilar for many people who believe in God... the idea that God does not exist is impossible to them because their own experiences create a mountain of personal evidence that is utterly incontravertable. Unfortunately, this evidence exists in the mind of the individual and there is no way that we know of to extract it. The fact that it is merely in one's brain, however, does not reduce the possibility that it might actually be true.

*This concept is not even readily dismissed by occam's razor because outside of what we identify as physical laws, which may only be a manifestation of what we, with our limited senses, can perceive about the universe, there is no reason to suppose that the fabrication of what _WE_ would call a more complex universe is in any way actually more complex than if it all started from a big bang of a singularity. Ultimately, the only thing that we can know for sure is that, ironically, we cannot know anything else.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[ArcherB]

Well this is my point exactly. Since you can't prove it, I'm forced to believe that you don't KNOW it. Knowing implies a some degree of certainty. I believe that you BELIEVE that God created man, but I'm also sure that you are not certain of that 'fact.' For you to state that you are 100% certain only makes me shake my head. As you've said, 'faith and intelligence are in no way mutually exclusive,' and one mark of intelligence is being open to alternatives.

When you believe something strongly enough, you know it to be true. I have never seen Cygnus X1, yet I know it is there. I hear there is evidence to support it, but just took their words for it without actually doing the observations myself. Now if I know that Cygnus X1 exists with such little evidence, imaging how much I know that the universe is the result if ID when I have done the research for that myself. I've taken the time to consider alternatives and based my conclusions on my personal research of the writings of those much brighter than I am such as Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas, Leibniz, and Aquinas who argued "First Cause" and scientists such as Einstein, who believe there is simply too much order in the universe to be random. Now I, similar to you, take an agnostic approach to the matter by admitting that my feeble mind is not capable of understanding an infinite being. If God created man via evolution, who am I to tell Him that He is wrong. On the flipside, I get offended by those telling me I am wrong because I believe in God, and try to use evolution to prove it to me, especially after I state that the two are not mutually exclusive.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[NeutronCowboy]

"If you believe something strongly enough, it is really no longer a belief, is it?"

You're kidding me, right? What is it then? Fact? I can believe in purple dragons, flying spaghetti monsters and black helicopters with all the certainty in the world, but that doesn't make any of them reality. Could you please explain how you got to this conclusion? Because this is so far out there that can only think that I misunderstood you.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[NeutronCowboy]

Personally, I always found the entire argument for a God of the Gaps (I don't understand it, therefore God did it) as incredibly weak to begin with. You are essentially arguing that your level of ignorance is the closest anyone can get to omniscience - which is ridiculous in the light of 5000 years of science, and in the light of day-to-day occurences.

In my opinion, Hume never had to provide a counter-example to invalidate the Allmighty Designer. We are an ignorant lot, and simply assuming we are not is not a very good foundation from which to argue for the existence of God.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[JohnSearle]

When you believe something strongly enough, you know it to be true.

Well I suppose we're into more a question of epistemology then, rather than a question concerning God. What are the necessary criteria that produce truth and knowledge, and such. I'm not sure I agree with your working definition, but I'll accept it.

- John

Re:Article even has a slant!

[ArcherB]

->It's quite simple really. God created the heavens and the earth and all the oceans, seas, lands, and plants and creatures.

Which God(s)?

That depends on what you choose to believe. It's not my place to tell you what to believe. I only brought it up because the GP asked. (Curiously, how does one "believe in ID?" Seriously, explain your view.)

Face it, you belong to the worlds' oldest and greatest money making machine - church. How much of your annual earnings go towards your pastor's new Jaguar? Er, I mean, towards the spreading of the faith to more sources of income ... or, sorry, how much of your hard earned money goes towards your church?

Well, I haven't given enough, frankly. If my preacher drove a Jag, I'd see your point. However, my church feeds the poor, gives toys to kids for Christmas, and opens its doors to the homeless. Granted, the church is moving to a fancy, brand new building. But the preacher used to work construction and built most of it himself in his free time, with the help of a few unemployed helpers who were overpaid in an attempt to help them get back on their feet. Of course, everyone involved is invited to attend church, and some did, but that had no affect on the help they were offered, and they were not preached to in exchange the help. ("Reading the Bible = food" --South Park) Still, I see where you get your opinion. When I walk into a church and see plasma LCD's all over the place, I wonder how many of the hungry could be fed for each of those HD monitors. Unfortunately, you have let a few bad examples represent an entire religion. That's no different than assuming that all Muslims or terrorists, all Catholics are child molesters or that all (your minority here) steal.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[ArcherB]

I answered your question in another post. Since my risk of being modded redundant higher if I just copy and paste that post, I'll refer you to Here

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Nopal]

No one has presented "the disprovability" of God as an argument to believe, and no, I'm not so dense as to attempt to build on such an argument a valid case for the existance of God (hence my previous comments about your prerogative to build strawmen such as the tiny elephants).

In fact, the only argument that has been a purported way to prove or disprove anything is in your orginal post. I am merely pointing out that such an argument really proves or disproves nothing beyond refuting the flawed arguments of those few "intelligent design" proponents that also pretend to understand the nature of how God operates (hint: The idea of an intelligent designer per se assumes nothing of how God operates).

If I wanted to build a case for God there are, as I said, a number of concepts that are possible only if we assume that a God exist. There are some very compelling epistemological theories about the nature of knowledge and how it may relate to God. In additional, there are philosophical excercises such as the Pascal wager that can be used to further bolster the case for faith. But that is not the scope of this discussion, and all the arguments in the world mean little if your mind is closed anyway, hence the need for faith (open mind), but I digress once more.

The scope of this discussion is your offered "disproval" for intelligent design, which offers virtually nothing in the way of disproval to those that don't have a caricatured idea of God.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Citizen of Earth]

Right, because intelligent people are never wrong. Only people of faith are wrong.

Clearly that's a straw man. I would claim that it is only people who claim that they are never wrong who are wrong. And guess what people of faith claim about their articles of absolute faith: that they are never wrong. Absolute faith is a vacuum of intelligence.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[rthille]

which means I know that God[emphasis mine]

You must have a different definition of 'know' than I do.
All I ask is that you grant me the same respect and stop trying to tell me what I should be believing or that my belief system is somehow not compatible with reality.

I may respect _you_, and I won't tell you what you should believe, but I will say that while your belief system may be compatible with reality, it's very very improbable that it reflects reality accurately.
Therefore, I am unlikely to treat your belief with the respect I would treat something that _is_ likely to accurately reflect reality, regardless of how much you would like me to respect that belief.
I try to respect the _people_ who hold such irrational beliefs, but reading the discussions on slashdot where religious people quote the bible and argue about which part means what and how this line later on means you can ignore this other section makes me feel like I'm watching children argue over the color of t-shirt their imaginary friends are wearing.
Come on, we're adults, we can handle the idea that the universe is a very large, unfriendly place and in perspective, to the universe, we're are to it, less than the bacteria on our eyelash-mites are to us.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Moofie]

I claim that my articles of faith are right for me. I absolutely agree with you that anybody who thinks their dogma is infallible is crazy.

My articles of faith are the ones I've chosen to be accountable to. That's their only value.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[DragonWriter]

No, as a Christian, you believe that God created man. There is a difference.

Belief does not imply knowledge (read up on discourses on epistemology etc).

If you read up on discourses on epistemology, you will find a lack of consensus, because there is ongoing dispute about what it means to "know" something and what it means to have a belief that is "justified" (and, additionally, whether the two mean the same thing, whether one requires the other, etc.)

Most will agree that belief does not imply knowledge, but that doesn't negate the claim to knowledge you reject. What you really are saying, it seems to me, is that you don't believe the thing he claims to know is a belief that is justified or justifiable under your personal set of beliefs about epistemology.

Faith and intelligence are in no way mutually exclusive.

That is arguable. Faith and facts, however, are mutually exclusive, unless substantiated with reproducible, empirical, scientific evidence.

You are confusing "facts" with "empiricism", here, it seems to me, and even there I'd disagree.

Faith is, in simplest form, the belief that a belief may be justified other either empiricially or by pure logic. It is not inconsitent with intelligence, nor is it inconsistent with "facts", nor is it inconsistent with empiricism except with the further and unnecessary belief that the kinds of beliefs that can be justified through faith overlap with the subjects that can be investigated empirically, and further the belief that in that case justification of belief through faith trumps empirical justification.

Only then is there a conflict with empiricism. Even then, its not a conflict with intelligence

I may believe in a purple dragon, however that does not imply that a purple dragon exists.

True, so far as it goes.

And moreover, as an intelligent man, it is my opinion that because of the lack of any reproducible, empirical, scientific evidence, the probability of the exitence of a purple dragon is minimal.

I'm not sure what intelligence has to do with your belief here, except perhaps to contradict it. I would suggest that an intelligent person would say that, judging from empirical facts alone, there is insufficient data to reach a conclusion on the probability of the existence of purple dragons somewhere in the universe.

Therefore, without sufficient evidence (despite the appearance of dragons in several pieces of literature), I would have to say that I do not particularly believe in a purple dragon, or more precisely that the existence of such a creature is highly improbable.

Again, I don't see any justification for any conclusion on probability; certainly, the assumption under empiricism would be, as purple dragons are unnecessary to explain any existing observations, that one presume they do not exist, but that does not mean it is highly improbable that they do exist, only that it is unnecessary to explain the observed universe so far.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[DragonWriter]

However, if you believe that the entire universe is only a few thousand years old, as many extreme Christians do, then you could make the case that biological evolutionary common descent implies that God didn't create the planet and the universe (although, in truth, the same could be said about pretty much any branch of natural science).

Er, no, you couldn't.

You could claim that evolutionary common descent implies that God didn't create the planet and universe in the manner you believe he did. Which isn't the same thing.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[ArcherB]

Clearly that's a straw man. I would claim that it is only people who claim that they are never wrong who are wrong. And guess what people of faith claim about their articles of absolute faith: that they are never wrong. Absolute faith is a vacuum of intelligence.

I never claimed absolute faith. I've considered differing points of view and continue to do so. I know what I know based on my own experience and research. So my knowledge are not based on blind faith. You have had different experiences and researched different things, so you know something different. When you look at the fable of the blind men examining the elephant, each came to a different conclusion based on their own observations. That doesn't make them any less intelligent. I'm not going to be so arrogant and insult your intelligence just because we disagree.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[strider44]

That is arguable. Faith and facts, however, are mutually exclusive, unless substantiated with reproducible, empirical, scientific evidence.

I just thought I might point out that faith and fact do not intersect at all. You obviously are misinterpreting the definition of "faith". Something in which you have faith in is something that by it's nature cannot be disproved. You cannot disprove that there is a god since whatever evidence put forth could have been put there by god to test man's faith. Your purple dragon example is faulty since you can disprove that there is purple dragons by looking at every place in the world at once and saying "no there's no purple dragon here". Sure a long winded disproof but still valid. A better example would be, say, ghosts or angels which could be invisible.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[KurdtX]

Faith and intelligence are in no way mutually exclusive.

Well put... here's another version:

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle

Re:Article even has a slant!

[rthille]

You should read up more on Einstein if you're going to use his 'God does not play dice with the universe' as part of the basis for your faith. If you feel strongly enough about your faith that you'd like to challenge it with some well reasoned arguments, I'd recommend Richard Dawkin's new book 'The God Delusion'. Having read his earlier books like The Selfish Gene, and Climbing Mount Improbable is helpful, but not necessary.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[BlueBlade]

When you believe something strongly enough, you know it to be true. I have never seen Cygnus X1, yet I know it is there. I hear there is evidence to support it, but just took their words for it without actually doing the observations myself. Now if I know that Cygnus X1 exists with such little evidence, imaging how much I know that the universe is the result if ID when I have done the research for that myself.

I'm sorry, but there is one fundamental difference between "knowing" that Cygnus X1 exists, and "knowing" that God created man. The first one is based on facts, and thus isn't a belief. While, by your own admission, you didn't build a telescope yourself to observe the sky, you can do so at any time. You can go ahead and verify the facts about Cygnus X1.

On the other hand, you're never going to be able to go and independently verify the fact that God created man. That's why there's another word for it, belief (or faith). No matter how much you believe in God, it's never going to become knowledge. You can "know" all you want that you can fly by flapping your arms, but no matter how much you "know" it, you're still going to go splat if you jump from a 50 floor building (on Earth anyway).

See? In the second case, your "knowledge" was testable, but untested, so it was actually a belief, not knowledge. In the first case, your "knowledge" is not only untested, but also untestable, meaning it's even more of a belief. Only testable facts can be called knowledge. Everything else is belief.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[HappyEngineer]

Speak for yourself. I'm pretty sure my great grandfather was an actual ape (or possibly a baboon). I don't know the details, but it seems likely that my grandmother got a little frisky at the zoo.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, you were right the first time. The common ancestor must necessarily also be an ape, as it would have existed after the separation of the greater and lesser apes (eg. gibbons).

So, no need to say ape-like. The only people confused are the ones who think "gorilla" when they hear "ape", and their understanding is so limited that there's no point in trying to lessen the accuracy of your statements to try and get them to comprehend. You just need to explain that 'ape' is a broader categorisation than they might realise :)

Re:Article even has a slant!

[mapkinase]

Faith and facts, however, are mutually exclusive

Faith and scientific facts operate within diffent domains of human existence. Any ontology that people are trying to find in religious books is quite ambigious in terms of exact scientific statements, because of its intrinsic nature of word spoken by God, not by human. All the ontology references in religious books should be interpreted in the utalitarian sense, not ongological sense.If religious books says "Sun is moving from East to West on the sky", it does not mean that we should believe that star Sun is rotating around the planet Earth, it means a different thing - a guidance to us, that the areas of sunrise and sunset are fixed, that we should use sun for calendar and navigation. It is vague and does not qualify for science, and it should not be considered as scientific prediction in any way, pro-religion or anti-religion.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[mapkinase]

You are confusing notions. "Intelligence" is mostly linked to ability to make complex logical conclusions. Skills (in terms of mental work) are abilities to apply the intelligence in a certain area. Pauling was very knowledgable in chemistry, but not in medicine (that is why his affair with vitamin C is embarassing). That does not mean he is not "intelligent" in medicine. He just lacked knowledge.

It is better not to argue about terminology. Just find out what your vis-a-vis mean.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[el magnifico]

This discussion brings to mind a long-ago visit I had with my best friend who at that time was in his third year of an orthopedic surgery residency. I came in through the back door of the hospital at about 2 am and he was in the residency room. He picked up a book of gorgeous drawings of the hand including cutaways, layered drawings and told me, as I remember: I am a rational being. I like to think of myself as working in science. Evolution seems to be as plain as day. Except, when I see how intricate and beautiful are the workings of this hand, its difficult for me to fathom how this could have come about randomly. It has to be the work of something bigger. Like him it is easy for me to accept evolution because of its empirical, scientific foundation (and I do) and to see creationism as a belief. Yet my friend's observation is, to me, one of the reasons why so many "learned" folks still maintain a belief in G-d or some sort of higher being.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[zuiraM]

I lack the kind of evidence you cite for the existence of America, never having been there myself, and never having participated in any attempt to falsify the hypotheses surrounding its existence.

However, I do believe that America exists, and that it is approximately due west from me.

Would you consider me unintelligent for not scientifically testing everything I believe in? Because I get a hell of a lot more useful work done by making some assumptions like that. If I want to sort a dataset, I just paste in a quicksort, or something like that. To try to challenge the validity of that sorting algorithm as a choice in a given case, unless I know of a reason not to, is a waste of my time. Others have spent years on the subject of algorithm analysis, and I choose to have *faith* in their conclusions, and I choose to treat the results as facts.

Personally, I would consider the latter to be the intelligent choice.

For that matter, if it improves his life in any way to believe in Kibo or whatnot, will you consider him unintelligent for choosing to believe? I'd say he clearly demonstrates intelligence in making a choice that presumably improves his quality of life, making it clear that he isn't about to go bible-bashing us, making it clear that he knows that it is impossible to test his faith, and also by not holding specific beliefs on the "hows" of it that would be incompatible with the available evidence.

Whether faith in a specific religion is intelligent depends on the content of said faith, and on the nature and situation of the person espousing this faith, as well as what philosophical schools (e.g. moral schools, etc.) you choose as a basis for your discourse.

Re:Article even has a slant!

[zuiraM]

Indeed, many so-called religious people have a desperate need to "settle" the matter to themselves, for their views to be "right", and to have absolute confidence in their faith.

Personally, I favor Kierkegaards take, that true religious belief necessitates doubt. In the absence of doubt, you have a very different kind of faith, one that is incompatible with the basic tenets of many mainstream religions in their original form. This is most certainly the case with Christianity, for instance. You can have blind faith in what a particular church is telling you, but it isn't the kind of "enlightened", self-examining faith that this stuff was originally about.

Heck, if they're going to use the bible as an argument, then let's just buy into their paradigm for a moment, and illustrate the point "from within": the bible states Jesus himself experienced doubt several times, and if you take the source as reliable, he was God's own son; if you further buy into the popular churches' assertions that he was consubstantiate (equivalent) to God, what does that say about the religious importance of having enough doubt to examine yourself and your faith, and make the necessary improvements rather than becoming a dogmatist fanatic?

Re:Article even has a slant!

[tehcyder]

Don't be such an ass. If you had read up on discourses on epistemology, you'd realize that under a strict epistemological definition, the only thing you can know (in that sense of the word) is your own existence. You can't know anything else, be it God's existence, cause and effect, the scientific method, or that 2+2=4.

That's always the fallback position of a true believer.

They say that they believe X, I say I don't as there's no evidence for it, and they say "well, since you can't prove that anything exists anyway outside your own mind anyway, then my belief in X is as genuine as yours in anything else."

In this case I side with Dr Johnson's refutation of Bishop Berkeley's unfalsifiable idealistic philosophy (by kicking a stone).

If your faith is so weak...

[kent_eh]

If your faith is so weak that you need the courts to help you believe, then maybe you need to look in the mirror for the problem?
Yup, gotta get rid of those tempting "ideas" out there in the big bad world. Might lead a person to think.

Re:If your faith is so weak...

[Evanisincontrol]

Thinking is for heretics.

Re:If your faith is so weak...

[Enzo the Baker]

If you'll apply the same standard to non-belief, I'm right there with you.

Re:If your faith is so weak...

[Dan Ost]

In the absence of evidence, wouldn't non-belief be the default position?

Or do you routinely believe in everything that you nothing about?

Re:If your faith is so weak...

[ArcherB]

If your faith is so weak that you need the courts to help you believe, then maybe you need to look in the mirror for the problem?
Yup, gotta get rid of those tempting "ideas" out there in the big bad world. Might lead a person to think.

Wait a sec. I thought bucking the system, questioning authority, considering multiple ideas, and not believing everything you were told were good things. Are we now saying that this girl should sit down, shut up and believe what the government tells her? When did that become cool?

(Note: I'm not saying she is right, but it seems when someone bucks the system when it comes to Iraq, wiretapping, Internet censorship or whatever, it's a good thing. But when someone bucks the system for their religion, they can't think. A little consistency is all I'm asking for.)

Re:If your faith is so weak...

[Dr. Manhattan]

Wait a sec. I thought bucking the system, questioning authority, considering multiple ideas, and not believing everything you were told were good things. Are we now saying that this girl should sit down, shut up and believe what the government tells her? When did that become cool?

Everything's a balancing act. You have to make some judgements about what seems solid and unquestionable and what seems farfetched. And yes, it's good to at least occasionally entertain even far-out ideas.

However, there's also such a thing as evidence to help guide one in making such judgements. The evidence has accumulated to the point where no sane individual questions (except for fun) the (more or less) spherical nature of the Earth, or the basically Copernican model of the solar system. And yes, the evidence for common descent and descent with modification is at least as solid. There are still questions and areas of research, of course. Even General Relativity, our most-thorougly-and-precisely-tested-theory-ever, has areas where we need more research - the interface with Quantum Mechanics, for example, which is very nearly as solidly tested.

I'm comfortable in dismissing those who propose a flat earth. I'm equally comfortable in dismissing those who dispute the basic outline of current geology and biology. We'll have more accurate theories as time goes on, but they will still match those very-well-documented-and-tested broad outlines, in the same way that Newton's Laws are still so valid that even NASA uses them with a few relativistic fudge factors thrown in, because a full relativistic treatment of a space probe's travel is too dang complicated to be useful.

Re:If your faith is so weak...

[k_187]

No, that only applies when its something I agree with. Wait, doesn't that make me just like the people I'm condemning? Nooooooooooooooo

Re:If your faith is so weak...

[drinkypoo]

Well, only if you're a catholic or similar. Most religions, even forms of christianity, don't expect you not to think. In fact many believe that faith is strongest when it has been tested. Few religions have the history of the catholic church, actively suppressing education so that people couldn't learn to read the bible and find out that the clergy is full of shit.

Re:If your faith is so weak...

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel great sarcasm in your words, but Martin Luther (rightly) saw the reason as a main danger for religion.

Re:If your faith is so weak...

[Anonymous Coward]

If your lack of faith is so weak that you have to sue to have a sculpture of the 10 commandments removed from a courthouse

then maybe you need to look in the mirror for the problem?
Yup, gotta get rid of those tempting "ideas" out there in the big bad world. Might lead a person to think.

Re:If your faith is so weak...

[soft_guy]

Well, only if you're a catholic or similar. Most religions, even forms of christianity, don't expect you not to think. In fact many believe that faith is strongest when it has been tested. Few religions have the history of the catholic church, actively suppressing education so that people couldn't learn to read the bible and find out that the clergy is full of shit. The catholic church (today) isn't trying to claim a literal belief in creationism. Certain protestant crackpots are.

Re:If your faith is so weak...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean Heuristics

Re:If your faith is so weak...

[zuiraM]

Yup. Jesus, for instance. Maybe they should take his example. :)

Re:If your faith is so weak...

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Good idea. 8-)
The problem is, Christianity's moral code is possibly the most difficult of all moral codes; Christians believe it's impossible to follow unaided. And Christian salvation doesn't depend solely on keeping the moral code. These partially explain the behavior of the average church-goer.

Re:If your faith is so weak...

[zuiraM]

All moral codes are complicated, for the most part because of their vagueness.

The difficulty with Christianity does not stem from any inherent complexity, but rather from the incomplete transmission of the source material, as well as the linguistics etc.

Some Christians may believe it is impossible to follow it unaided, but I would say that (baring a life as a monk or somesuch) it is the otherway around.

As for the Christian idea of salvation, what it depends on is rather vague, as well. I have my own view in that regard, tending toward Gnosticism, but there is great variability among those who are placed (or place themselves) under the heading "Christian". I doubt even 10% of them have given any real thought to their faith; YMMV.

Re:If your faith is so weak...

[Enzo the Baker]

I have no evidence that there is anyone who believes only what they have evidence for, or who believes everything they know nothing about.

easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want your evidence and other theories taught in science class, all you have to do is find some, um... evidence for your 'alternative theory'

If you don't want to use scientific evidence, just give us something that makes sense. Not some vague mythological story.
Also please do not quote from some book that thinks bats are kinds of fowl. Or that cows breed striped cows if they look at striped sticks.

The schools name is

[antifoidulus]

Cervantes Gymnasium. Am I the only one that thought "that must be where the Soul Calibur people go to train."

I sincerely apologize for any pain the above pun may have caused.

Re:The schools name is

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Cervantes Gymnasium. Am I the only one that thought "that must be where the Soul Calibur people go to train."

I bet most Slashdotters don't know the following, which comes from http://www.dictionary.com/

Gymnasium - An academic high school in some central European countries, especially Germany, that prepares students for the university.

The term is used a lot in the former Soviet Union. I've heard it used in Ukraine to describe what we in America would call "high school".

Re:The schools name is

[markbt73]

Actually, it made me think, "Well, I guess we know what their mascot is..."

Re:The schools name is

[antifoidulus]

I'm aware, they have the same thing here in Germany(gymnasium). It was a joke, relax!

Re:The schools name is

[bdonalds]

Cervantes Gymnasium. Am I the only one that thought "that must be where the Soul Calibur people go to train."

I thought it was where knight wannabees trained to fight windmills....

Re:Enough already!

[eln]

In what way are biologists not nerds?

Re:Sure! Here's your alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

The Soviet's had many good engineers and mathematicians, but good God did they suck at biology!

On a side note, it is a little ironic that a once brutally secular state is now having issues with differing opinions on how the world was created by the little Comrade in the Sky.

This is awesome!

[nathan s]

Now all the people who don't believe in evolution can make sure they wear the Russian anti-evolution suit and buy some extra ones for their descendents. That way, they can be sure that they're still human a few millenia from now when the rest of us are all sporting extra noses and are mostly giant brains floating in strange liquid-filled glass cases...

Re:This is awesome!

[Apocalypse111]

Extra noses? Current evolutionary trending for humanity tends towards smaller noses and larger eyes, with bigger skulls to hold our brains. Smaller mouths too, except if you had politicians as your ancestors.

Re:This is awesome!

[drinkypoo]

Now all the people who don't believe in evolution can make sure they wear the Russian anti-evolution suit

Dude, we already have an anti-evolution suit. It's called a condom.

Re:This is awesome!

[markov_chain]

Must... watch... less... anime!

Re:This is awesome!

[WiFiBro]

Oh you mean that ingenious device shunned by creationists and therefore causing positive selection pressure on the gullible part of the human population?

Religious Warfare in Russia

[randall_burns]

What I think makes this article interesting is the history of religious warfare we've seen in Russia over the years. It sounds like things are heating up there again.

Miscommunication on Darwin

[smooth wombat]

The teacher of the science class had apparently even taken the step of stating at the start of the school year that there were other theories on the origin of life."

Darwin's theory says nothing about how life got started. Darwin only talked about how life evolved once it got started.

I guess the teacher needs to go back to school to present the correct information.

Nitpick time. The last line of the synopsis is not what the teacher said. From the article:

"When starting the course on the matter, the biology teacher said that there are other versions of humanity's origin," she said.

That's different than saying how all life began, as the submitter suggested.

Re:Miscommunication on Darwin

[Coryoth]

Ain't it funny his writing was entitled, "The Origin of the Species." When he did not mean origin. Heh.

Not at all, the title is entirely accurate: it is about The Origin of Species , as in the origin of the wide variety of different kinds of plants animals; a reasonable rephrasing might be "The Origin of Diversity"; it is not titled The Origin of Life.

Re:Miscommunication on Darwin

[Volante3192]

Ain't it funny his writing was entitled, "The Origin of the Species." When he did not mean origin. Heh.

Actually, it's "The Origin of Species." The second 'the' in yours changes the meaning dramatically.

Re:Miscommunication on Darwin

[slashdotjunker]

Ain't it funny his writing was entitled, "The Origin of the Species." When he did not mean origin. Heh.

Actually, the book is titled:

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

(source: Wikipedia)

The book is about (the act of) speciation. The title refers to the mechanism by which scientists create categories and assign creatures to a category. More interestingly, it covers what separates categories and how categories are created or changed over time. i.e. evolution.

The book is not about the ancestral origin of a species or "the Species".

Never really understood why

[Programmer_In_Traini]

I never really understood why anyone give a rat's ass about where we come from ?

What difference is it gonna make in your life now ? or in the future ?

Is it gonna change the way we evolve if we think its done otherwise ?

I took christian religion courses all of my youth at school and that never stopped me from turning into an atheist.

IMO, people suing the state for things like that aren't in it for the greater good of the populate (or the evolution for that matter) they're much more in it for comforting their own ego by trying to think about the children.

But you know what, once these children grow into adults, if Darwin is what they like to think that's what they're gonna think ... and vice versa so why go and try to make a fuss to convince the world your theory is much better.

Re:Never really understood why

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! What's the point in finding out the secrets of the universe? You know, that whole science thing. What has science done for us recently? *sips low carb Monster while typing on dual core computer*

OMG!

[fiannaFailMan]

Come back Commies! All is forgiven!

Re:OMG!

[yoprst]

Dude, they're already back. Just, well, rebranded.

Re:Enough already!

[StupidMBA]

In what way are biologists not nerds?

Are you frick'in kidding me?!?!

The biologists had ALL of the best supplements for building muscle and speen! And those guys were FAST!!! No way, man! The Biologists are SCARY: they are not geeks!!!

Here's Something Inflammatory

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I get the impression that the "Intelligent Design" movement has received widespread and fairly eclectic promotion around the globe, and that we can expect to see similar ID-inspired anti-intellectualism in most of the developed world (there is already more than enough regular anti-intellectualism in most of the under-developed world). I think it is at least somewhat interesting to compare the spread and spreaders of ID with the spread of Qutbism. To the best of my knowledge, we don't have many ID'ers going 911 on people. But then again, the vast majority of Qutbists have not done so either.

Re:Here's Something Inflammatory

[fbjon]

There was a debate between an ID'er and a scientist on swedish TV not too long ago, the ID'er a high school teacher I think, the other might have been in some university position. Anyway, the idea was of course to hear the points of either side on the issue, and the host tried to put some difficult questions to both parties. I don't remember much what was talked, other than that every argument the ID'er put forward was quite fluffy and vague, and was shot down with a sniper rifle by the scientist, until the host had to break off the massacre because of lack of time.

Re:Enough already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Physics: E=(1/2)mv^2
Chemistry: 2H2 + O2 = 2H20
Electricity: E=IR
Bio: ???

Evolution of the courts...

[__aaclcg7560]

I'm surprised that Darwinism knocked Marxism off the "must promulgate to death" educational list and that it's being battled in the courts instead of the streets. I guess this is American democracy at work in Russia.

Problem with textbook? Sue school!

[Johnny_Truant]

FTA
Her father, Kiril Schreiber, who represented her in court Wednesday, said he wants the biology textbook revised

This sound to me more like an issue he should take up with the publisher. I mean, what is the school going to do about it? Make all of the other ten year olds cross out "evolution" every time it appears in the textbooks?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Sure! Here's your alternative

[AndreyFilippov]

Soviet Union was never a "brutally secular state" - it was always a very religious state. State religion was weird there - it promised "Communism" in the "near future", not the afterlife, but it still was very similar. Now the table has turned, and the CPSU (or in Russian) is replaced by Russian Orthodox Church and there are definite advances to bring religious studies (only Orthodox, nothing for other Christians or Muslims) to schools in Russia. Disclaimer: I've spent most of my life in the USSR.

Is atheism a religion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course not. But it's good to know why:

http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/atheism.html

Re:Enough already!

[chrismcdirty]

So now you need a catchy equation in order to be a nerd?

Obligatory

[hellfire]

In Russia, the theory evolves you!

Our magical overlords....

[bgog]

Why stop at biology. I suggest an alternative to physics. Magic. Specifically the evocation school. Man a 4d6 fireball would do wonders for the worlds energy problems.

Re:Our magical overlords....

[Coryoth]

Why stop at biology. I suggest an alternative to physics.

Not that hard to do, as long as you're using ID style reasoning: pick some holes, or currently poorly understood areas (which, let's face it, every field of science has), rattle on about them for a while, then leap across the false dichotomy and claim that, since the current theory fails to explain things therefore your alternative must be the truth! Gravity is a lie! Teach the Controversy! (complete with entirely valid references to peer reviewed physics articles).

Re:Our magical overlords....

[Chris Burke]

Man a 4d6 fireball would do wonders for the worlds energy problems.

A 4d6 fireball implies a level 4 mage, I'm not sure how that works since you can't learn fireball until level 5 (barring changes in D&D 3.5 or something else I'm forgetting). Maybe if you used a scroll... But in any event, you can only do that a couple times a day!

No, for solving the world's energy problems, it's all about Continual Light. That's one that will really piss off the Thermodynamicists!

Re:Our magical overlords....

[markmier]

I'm an ENCHANTER, you insensitive clod!

Re:Our magical overlords....

[Apocalypse111]

Alternate solution - open a couple of mage doors with the entrance on the ground, facing up, and the exit directly above it and facing down. Pour some water in and construct a waterwheel to catch the continuously falling stream. Depending on what version of the rules you're running under, this might not work for mage doors, but I don't think there were ever any restrictions placed on the orientation of doors created through psyonics. Either way, you'd need to find a way to make the solution permanent, since it can only be held open for a few rounds.

Re:Our magical overlords....

[Spectre]

Hmmm, evocation school of magic ... sounds like D&D ... which in all of the common character classes across the last decade of D&D, Fireball is a 3rd level spell and the caster gains access to upon reaching character level 5. Damage from a Fireball is (caster level)d6, so it would be pretty unusual to have a 4d6 fireball since almost all characters would have a minimum of a 5d6 fireball.

Yes, I have now proven I'm a geek-extraordinaire for even noticing this.

Re:Our magical overlords....

[Anonymous Coward]

Eversmoking bottle + turbine = perpetual energy machine

Russian Evolution Joke Toolkit

[adimarco]

Here, start with this simple formula - "In Soviet Russia, [direct object] [transitive verb]s YOU!"

Insert words relevant to evolution or intelligent design. Bam! Instant humor. Be the envy of your friends and coworkers.

Re:Russian Evolution Joke Toolkit

[fbjon]

Prior art three comments up.

Re:Russian Evolution Joke Toolkit

[Neoncow]

In Soviet Russia, humour envies YOU!

Re:Russian Evolution Joke Toolkit

[mutterer]

I propose the following alternative (following Kayne, 1994; Chomsky, 1995):

In Soviet Russia,[unnacusative object] [transitive verb complex (phi-3sg)] YOU!

Intelligent Design?

[MotherSuperior]

Why does it always need to be said, every time this topic comes up, that Intelligent Design is NOT even a theory? A theory holds a special place in science. It has verifiable data. It's not teenage bong-rip philosophy hour. Gravity is a Theory. Relativity is a Theory. The very idea that the Earth orbits the sun is a Theory. Calling intelligent design a theory lends it way too much credence as an actual scientific model for the development of life.

And again, I'm not sure why it always needs to be said, but where does anyone even get the idea that intelligent design actually contradicts evolution? Frankly, I'm not terribly impressed with a God that just blinks his eyes and makes something happen. However, an intelligence that was able to design such complex systems as, say, all biological life on planet Earth, evolution inclusive... I would be pretty impressed by.

The Universe is full of Miracles and Wonders. What higher purpose do you really need besides exploring the infinite? Being a good person, and worshipping some abstract authority figure seems pretty trivial by comparison, doesn't it?

Re:Intelligent design?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the lord did make the universe in six days; i mean look at this mess. black holes just about everywhere, war, famine, the impossibility of understanding our infinite universe...

"the lord works in mysterious ways"

bullsh*t. you tell me you wouldn't fire a contractor who used that excuse.

Re:Enough already!

[FellowConspirator]

Physics: E=(1/2)mv^2
Chemistry: 2H2 + O2 = 2H20
Electricity: E=IR
Bio: ???

Bio: C6H12O6 + 2ADP + 2NAD+ 2Pi -> 2C3H4O3 + 2ATP + 2NADH + 2H+
Acetyl-CoA + 3NAD+ + FAD + GDP + Pi + 2H2O + CoA-SH -> 2CoA-SH + 3NADH + 3H+ + FADH2 + GTP + 2CO2 + H2O

We biologists are geeks too, of course. We just do things the hard way (the long, hard, wet, and salty way -- if you like).

Species and life aren't the same thing

[Colin Smith]

Ain't it funny his writing was entitled, "The Origin of the Species." When he did not mean origin. Heh. Actually when he said species, he didn't mean life, he meant Species . i.e. Why the various living beings are all physically different from one another and not an amorphous grey goop.

Re:Species and life aren't the same thing

[no reason to be here]

Also, he didn't call it The Origins of the Species; he called it The Origin of Species. Written that way, I think it is much easier to parse what Darwin meant.

My apologies.

[StupidMBA]

I didn't mean to insult anyone.

Maybe I should have said that I regret that there are law suits that were filed in the US that may be instigating these types of law suits in other countries.

On the other hand, if you're a religious zealot who believes that your religion is scientific fact and that your fact that two people actually populated the entire Earth without any negative genetic effects and other facts that you have in the Bible, I wish you the best of that God has to offer. And may God damn me for being a sinner! I repent! Please, oh please, don't have God come down and strike me dead! I'm soooooo afraid!!

As my penance and confession, I have to admit, I thought Eve was really fucking HOT! In my Childrens Bible growing up, Eve hot these BIG tits and great hips! I just wanted to make God's babies with her!!! Really! If I wasn't supposed to think that way, why did God give me these urges?! Help me not to sin!!! (I'm crying now, Just like Jim Baker, and very other tele-evangelist caught fucking a prostitute and stealing money from their parishioners)

I HAVE SINNED!!!! GIVE ME MONEY!

Why do you think Russia's such a hot destination?

[Mariner28]

Why do you think Russia's such a hot destination for Evangelical Christian missionary programs? With all those years of Stalinism keeping religion under its heel, it's ripe for the picking. And naturally, ID and Creationism follows fundamental evangelical Christian teachings around the globe.

Want to bet on the chances that when the onion is peeled back, Focus On The Family or some other famous US-based evangelical organization is behind the suit? "Send us your dollars so we can do God's work in Russia and force their schools to teach Creationism rather than the Devil's work, Evolution!"

Header misstates article

[smchris]

The teacher of the science class had apparently even taken the step of stating at the start of the school year that there were other theories on the origin of life."

Not "theories" -- "other versions of humanity's origin,"

That's the whole point, isn't it? That creationism isn't a scientific theory?

It's perfectly reasonable to teach other "versions" in a comparative religion and folklore course.

Re:Enough already!

[Anonymous Coward]

>Bio: C6H12O6 + 2ADP + 2NAD+ 2Pi -> 2C3H4O3 + 2ATP + 2NADH + 2H+
>Acetyl-CoA + 3NAD+ + FAD + GDP + Pi + 2H2O + CoA-SH -> 2CoA-SH + 3NADH + >3H+ + FADH2 + GTP + 2CO2 + H2O
Not quite -that is at STP - if at a few hundred bars of pressure - no bio :->

More on-topic this time...

[copponex]

(from Jesus Camp)

MOM: (reading from "Exploring Creationism with Physical Science") One popular thing to do in American Politics is to note that the summers in the United States over the past few years have been very warm. As a result, global warming must be real. What's wrong with this reasoning?
KID: It's only gone up 0.6 degrees.
MOM: Yeah, it's not really a big problem, is it?
KID: No. I don't think that... it's going to hurt us.
MOM: It's a huge political issue, global warming is, and that's why it's really important for you to understand...
KID: Is evolution too?
MOM: Um, not really. On a much...
KID: Creationism?
MOM: Um, it's becoming one now. What if you had to go to school where the teacher said, "Creationism is stupid, and you're stupid if you believe in it?"
KID: I think they should...
MOM: Well, or what if you had to go to a school where the teacher said "Evolution is stupid, and you're stupid if you believe it?"
KID: I wouldn't mind that.
MOM: You wouldn't mind it. If you look at Creationism, it's the only possible answer to all the questions. It's the only possible answer.
KID: That's exactly what dad said!
MOM: Mmm hmmm, it's the only possible answer to all the questions.
KID: Oh, yeah...
MOM: Oh, yeah.
MOM: Did you get to the part on here where it says that science doesn't prove anything? And it's really interesting when you look at it that way.
KID: It is?
MOM: It is.
KID: (reading further) I think, personally, that Galileo made the right choice by giving up science for Christ.
(later)
MOM: We know when things started changing, you know, prayer got taken out of school, and um... the schools started falling apart. And now the rest of us are going, wait a minute, where is my country? Our firm belief is, there are two types of people: those who love Jesus and those who don't.

Two-Track Science Curriculum

[Ardipithecus]

Piece of cake, except for /.ting close minded geeks:

For those who require the greater challenge, who have open minds, and the strength to question and see beyond the well-worn path:

Track A: The four basic elements, Roman numerals, epicycles, alchemy, leeches, phlogiston, aether, UFOs, WMDs, Great Poets, Atlantis, etc.

For the blinder loving set,

Track B: Calculus, Diff Eqs, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Western Civ, etc

By not putting all the eggs in one basket, there's a better chance of success.

Re:Two-Track Science Curriculum

[Captain Sarcastic]

That's brilliant! Imagine the research papers that could come from the A track:

• Why Atomic Weapons Shouldn't Work
• Remote Viewing As A Safe Replacement For Satelite Surveillance
• Magnesia and Castor Oil - The Only Physics You Really Need

... and countless others

Re:Two-Track Science Curriculum

[Anonymous Coward]

and for most of us WAREZ!

Amazing

[J05H]

It's amazing how nobody in the press or these unlettered savages can tell the difference between evolution (change through time) and the origin of life? They are totally different issues and very different fields of study.

Evolution is proven fact, otherwise corn, dogs and dolphins wouldn't exist. If evolution wasn't an ongoing process then you would be an exact clone of your mother. Every time two lifeforms mate, they perform an act of evolution. Life originated somewhere, that's also a fact. Did it originate with a creator? Who created the creator? Did it originate in a stew of comet-delivered nitrogen-rich organic compounds? Chemically provable, but you have to "believe" in chemistry, astrophysics, genetics, DNA and the scientific process to comprehend it. DNA can be read like a book, face facts, all you creationists.

I'm surprised this suit would happen in Russia, but anti-logic knows no nationality.

Josh

Re:Amazing

[Lithdren]

I think the issue creationists have is evolution disproves something very fundimental to them.

God created man.

Evolution says man was a spawn from the tree with the chimps, and apes, who were themselves evolved from furry little mamals who were able to avoid extinction when the dinos kicked the bucket. God doesn't really fit well into that picture.

While I agree, if they wish to believe in god, they're more then welcome to. I disagree that they have the right to say they, and only they are right. Your right to swing your fist ends, where my nose begins. You're free to say im wrong, but im free to say im right.

Heresy!

[operagost]

The teacher of the science class had apparently even taken the step of stating at the start of the school year that there were other theories on the origin of life

HORRORS! We must suppress any knowledge of subversive ideas from our schools! Ignorance is strength!

Re:Heresy!

[geekoid]

except there aren't any other theories about the origins of life.
Not one.

Re:Heresy!

[pingveno]

It's not a question of subversive ideas, it's keeping from students from falsely getting the impression that science accepts ID. Few people would tolerate teachers telling their students that pedophilia is an "alternative." The same applies to junk science like ID.

origin of life

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

Darwin's theory does not concern itself with the origin of life, only the evolution of it.

Am I the only one...

[Shados]

Am I the only one who thinks that, even if ID was 100%, beyond a doubt, true, that it STILL wouldn't have place in a biology class? Biology is (not the exact definition, bear with me) the science of how organic stuff works. Organic stuff can evolve, period. Whats unclear is how it originaly got jump started. If its some superior being that jump started it, and you know that at 100%, the only thing that changes, is that we'd stop talking about how it all got jump started (beyond maybe a quick mention in 1 sentence in the intro of the book). The intelligent design stuff would still belong to another class, and the explaination of how complex organics change with each iteration (generation) would still be in the biology class.

So, since biology is a science, and thus only teach plausible theories (since everything in science is -always- open to debate. Thats the very definition), if in its current form, the evolution theory is not fit to be taught, -GRAVITY- isn't fit to be taught either. Should we stop teaching about gravity in physics classes? The hell?

Re:Am I the only one...

[tehcyder]

Am I the only one who thinks that, even if ID was 100%, beyond a doubt, true, that it STILL wouldn't have place in a biology class? Biology is (not the exact definition, bear with me) the science of how organic stuff works. Organic stuff can evolve, period. Whats unclear is how it originaly got jump started. If its some superior being that jump started it, and you know that at 100%, the only thing that changes, is that we'd stop talking about how it all got jump started (beyond maybe a quick mention in 1 sentence in the intro of the book). The intelligent design stuff would still belong to another class, and the explaination of how complex organics change with each iteration (generation) would still be in the biology class.

So, since biology is a science, and thus only teach plausible theories (since everything in science is -always- open to debate. Thats the very definition), if in its current form, the evolution theory is not fit to be taught, -GRAVITY- isn't fit to be taught either. Should we stop teaching about gravity in physics classes? The hell?

The parts of your post that are intelligible are illogical.

so, who's really behind this?

[cas2000]

i wonder if this girl (or her father) has had any contact with nutcase american missionaries?

they're a plague spreading their lunatic fundamentalist versions of christianity all over the globe. no-one else cares that much about evolution, no-one else has much difficulty reconciling their christianity with evolution, no-one else insists on such a tiny simpleton god.

This is so ridiculous

[acgrissom]

I, frankly, believe that thie entire debate concerning "Intelligent Design in Classrooms" is rather ludicrous. It is a biology classroom. If the teacher deems it pedagogically beneficial to discuss the philosophical interpretations of evolutionary theory, then why not let her? Are parents -- or, perhaps, more accurately, politicians -- so worried that their impressionable children are going to be irreparably corrupted by such dangerous ideas that they must be legislated out of the classroom altogether? If these classrooms are like most biology classrooms, the students are merely memorizing terms, in any case. Likewise, if a teacher deems it pedagogically irrelevant to discuss potential philosophical implications in the classroom, then that is his prerogative. I think that the kids deserve more credit for being able to make up their own minds about these things. What is a "scientific theory"? There are some very interesting denotations available. The fact of the matter is that one side of this debate wants theism to be admissible into scientific discussions; the other wants naturalism to be the de facto standard. Now, I personally think that making any worldview a standard by default is mistaken and arrogant. I do not believe in dispassionately assimilating information, but I also do not like the idea of a teacher shoving a worldview down the throat of a high school student. This is all about political correctness, and it is nothing new. There is absolutely no reasonable justification for a teacher to be banned from bringing up the philosophical implications of the information being presented. I would argue that one is doing a disservice by omitting this critical part of education. People are so afraid of someone "forcing" a view upon the students that we have taken items for discussion out of educational institutions. However, if the teacher has the disposition that things like intelligent design are inappropriate for a biology classroom, then that is also the teacher's prerogative. I happen to think that intelligent design is important to discuss, but that is just my opinion. Either there is a designer or there isn't. There are intelligent people who believe both. The only people who believe otherwise are guilty of bigotedly caricaturing people with whom they disagree.

Intelligent design?

[Grashnak]

I keep hearing about Intelligent Design, but the more I experience of our collosally messed up world, I can't help but wonder if the whole thing wasn't designed by something of a nitwit.

Big relief

[edwardpickman]

As an american it's comforting to know ignorance isn't limited to this country it's a universal concept.

Re:Big relief

[Shados]

I think we need to come up with the theory of Devolution. Because its what is happening to man kind now. We hit our pinacle, and now we're back tracking. I'm going to laugh from my grave when a hardcore christian's kid is born with a tail and brown fur.

Re:Big relief

[Anonymous Coward]

We are ignorant by design, don't you get it? oh, Whait!

Re:Sure! Here's your alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I probably sound like the typical bloody uneducated American, but do you have any more information about this religion? It is something that I had never heard about before and is intriguing. Americans are typically taught that the USSR was a secular state that banned all religious activity--not that it had a weird state religion. I'd be curious to know how it was structured and if people still believe in this religion.

Theory?

[SQLz]

"The teacher of the science class had apparently even taken the step of stating at the start of the school year that there were other theories on the origin of life."

No, there is only one theory about the origins of life. The theory is called the theory of evolution. Creation is based on old testament fables passed down from generation to generation by the tribes of Israel and put to text by scribes. The stories are supposed to teach deep lessons to the unwashed masses about what it means to be a person, not offer a theory on the creation of life. To come away from the book of genesis with the idea that God created the earth in 7 days means you completely missed the lessons the author was trying to teach. This is the reason why I think Christians are way off track, they have a totally wrong interpretation of Jewish texts. Maybe they should ask a Rabbi for help.

Re:Theory?

[acgrissom]

While I agree with you in principle, there are, in fact, many theories of the origin of life; there is one mainstream theory of the origin of life.

Re:Theory?

[openldev]

Why is it that everyone seems to assume that science and religion cannot coexist? I'm not trying to flamebait here at all. I'm only trying to say that not all of we Christians are completely ignorant to science.

Re:Theory?

[geekoid]

Name one other scientific theory. Origins of life being evolution, as opposed to Darwins natural selection.

A different scientific theory to either one woul be interesting.

Re:Theory?

[acgrissom]

It is worth noting that the original poster did not specific scientific theory; he just said "theory of the origin of life." In any case, there is still a minority of scientists who subscribe to a view more akin the the Lamarckian model; that is, one which is based on an abstraction of cooperation, rather than competition.

Re:Theory?

[GigsVT]

Evolution isn't really a theory of the origins of life.

The idea that naturally occuring amino acids might have started coalescing into protolife which then evolved, that's an origin theory.

Science really does have less to offer on the origin front. Don't confuse the issue, that's what they want.

Re:Theory?

[tehdaemon]

Because most Christians aren't generic Christians. They are members of specific denominations, each with rather specific theological teachings. While it is possible to come up with a Christian theology that does not conflict with currently accepted theories regarding history, (history of life, geology and human history.) A lot of Christians (most?) belong to sects where the theology IS in conflict with the evidence and the scientific theories.

Examples include

• ~4000 years ago all landmass on the earth was covered in water for about 1 year.
• All human languages derive from the one language that was spoken until sometime after this flood
• The earth was formed either from random space junk or nothing at all sometime between 6000 and 13000 years ago.
• New species cannot arise short of god creating new ones, because animals 'bring forth after their own kind'

In addition to this, many Christian theologies are set up so that if any of these pieces are admitted to be mistaken, then all of the other parts of the faith can also be questioned, as they mostly rely on traditional teachings and specific interpretations of biblical passages. For example, if the age of the earth is admitted to be greater than a literal reading of genesis allows, then the existance of adam is questioned, because they both rely on the same logic "the bible said so". And if this is questioned then the fall is questioned, no Adam, no fall - which leads to doubts about Christ's atonement.....

It is a house built on a foundation that looked like stone a few centuries ago. But when scientists stick their shovels into the few places they can reach, they are finding sand. Instead of searching for bedrock, many of these Christians are banning shovels near their house, and trying to scrape the sand^H^H^H^Hstone, back.

T

Re:Theory?

[openldev]

It really all depends on your interpretation. I, along most of the people in the church I attend, take a more liberal approach to the Bible when it comes to the story of creation. Times are represented in "days" just to make them more understandable to humans. I, personally, agree with evolution because the theory doesn't state how life began. It states how it evolved, ignoring the phenomena of creating the original, single celled organism. We see evolution and adaptation around us all of the time and cannot ignore it, but that still does not mean that religion and science cannot coincide. I mean, for many years people believed that the earth was flat, but it says in Isaiah that it is round. Of course, I realize that the "earth is round" fact was shot down by the catholic church, but the catholic church is a conservative Christian organization that has a bad habit of creating rules that were not originally prescribed in the Bible. Really, the interpretation of Genesis comes down to one thing ... how long is one day. Remember that it states (in Hebrews I think? don't quote me on that location though) that one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day to God. The concept of a day just puts things into context for a lot of humans that have difficulty realizing that time is irrelevant in an eternal existence. Most people don't consider that the 7th day of rest was simply God's way of giving us time to evolve into what we are today and what we will become in the future ... Of course, everyone has the right to their own beliefs. The only reason I posted all of this is because I wanted to express that not every Christian has their head in the sand. :)

Re:Theory?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look up "theory" in the dictionary. It's got a meaning outside of science.

Re:Theory?

[tehcyder]

To come away from the book of genesis with the idea that God created the earth in 7 days means you completely missed the lessons the author was trying to teach.

Yeah, you'd have to be a real fucking retard to come away with the idea that God created the earth in 7 days just from reading:

"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made."

Re:Theory?

[SQLz]

Your post is, ironic to say the least. You totally confirmed what I was saying and at the same time, shown yourself to be a total fucking retard! Thats just great. You read that single verse, and what you came away with is a literal interpretation of it, vs reading the entire story and coming away with actual lesson God intended. I'll give you a hint, your interpretion is so wrong, its not even close. I suggest, you take a real old testament class, or you go back and read each story as a whole.

USA Russia

[4D6963]

So in a way, Russia fell to the level of the USA. Says much about the level at which the US are.

I know, I deserve to be modded down, I'm being a naughty troll.

Grrr!

[JebusIsLord]

Origin of Life theories != Evolution != Natural Selection (Darwin's theory)

I hate when people get these 3 distinct things all mixed up. Darwin never even used the word "evolution". Evolution was recognized as occuring LONG before the theory of Natural Selection was proposed to explain it, and Darwin (to my knowledge) never even broached the subject of where life came from in the first place.

Arrrrgh!

Re:Grrr!

[Anonymous Coward]

As a journalist (in Kansas, sigh) I several years ago did a piece on what Intelligent Design is. In the process, I read Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box," which includes the following: For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing and have no particular reason to doubt it...I fairly respect the work of colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think the evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism -- natural selection working on variation -- might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. And part of my interview with him is paraphrased below, as printed in the story: He also said he doesn't dispute "monkey to man evolution" but questions whether the evidence is conclusive. Asked whether he thinks current species -- humans included -- were created just as they exist today, he answered with a simple "no." The real problem is that what scienctific validity there may be to ID is eclisped by young-earth creationist types, who have adopted it as a science-sounding step towards creationism. But ID isn't even about evolution, it's about the origins of first life, not about the origins of species!

Re:Sure! Here's your alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever country you're from, they have poor spellers. Why did you put an apostrophe in the plural "Soviets"? I mean, why didn't you write engineer's and mathematician's?

This is great!

[roman_mir]

Jesus - a holly monkey!

Yes! A great bumper sticker this would make.

Re:Why do you think Russia's such a hot destinatio

[ArcherB]

Why do you think Russia's such a hot destination for Evangelical Christian missionary programs? With all those years of Stalinism keeping religion under its heel, it's ripe for the picking. And naturally, ID and Creationism follows fundamental evangelical Christian teachings around the globe.

Want to bet on the chances that when the onion is peeled back, Focus On The Family or some other famous US-based evangelical organization is behind the suit? "Send us your dollars so we can do God's work in Russia and force their schools to teach Creationism rather than the Devil's work, Evolution!"

Not to be a troll, but would prefer Muslims take over Russia? You said yourself that it is ripe for the picking. Someone is going to go in there. I'd prefer "turn the other cheek" Christians to "submit by the sword" Muslims.

Religion should be required in school

[Colin Smith]

It is legally required in the UK and it's made about 50% of the population into outright atheists, another 35% into agnostics and of the remaining 15% who actually do believe, 10% never go to church, instead, simply talking privately to the voices in their head.

Re:Sure! Here's your alternative

[Per Abrahamsen]

Marxism shares some attributes with religions, and it is therefore tempting to call Marxism the state religion of "soviet russia".

What if dissing is a sacrament of your religion?

[Anonymous Coward]

what then? There are such religions, you know. Should they not be respected, too?

Re:Why do you think Russia's such a hot destinati

[shutdown -p now]

The bigger problem is that the Russian Orthodox Church, slowly but surely becoming a state religion (yet again) lately, is also rather heavily anti-evolution, especially among the clergy and the more devout followers. There's a fair share of Young Earth Creationists there, even, much to my surprise when I first found out. Evangelicals can't do much more besides preaching, whereas ROC can and does influence the government policies on the highest level (as evidenced by the recent introduction of the "Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture" as a mandatory subject in public schools of several regions)...

Intelligent Design: The God Lab

[Anonymous Coward]

This "opinion" was posted on NewScientist recently. I think everyone can understand the implications to scientific progress if research facilities, like Biologic Institute, actively approach research to justify ID or even just credibly question evolution.

Rulings, that in the past were decided because Intelligent Design had no empirical justification based on research, could easily become clouded and ambiguous if a real scientist testified he concludes from his research that evolution alone cannot explain biological processes (TFA exemplifies Dr. Douglas Axe as making such a plausible claim).

I read this article, recalled a similar "opinion" piece documenting ID in Home Schooling textbooks and wondered if this was the beginning of a new Dark Ages.

Re:Intelligent Design: The God Lab

[GigsVT]

even just credibly question evolution.

There's a word for things that are unquestionable, dogma. Let them question it, the difference between science and relgion is that science can stand up to scrutiny.

Re:Intelligent Design: The God Lab

[curveball225]

What is the whole purpose of science? To analyze the world from a purely humanist point of view. There is no spiritual side to science, nor emotional side to science. Ask science to explain love and it lists the chemicals that are involved, and the region of the brain it takes place. But hey, that's progress baby..

Re:Intelligent Design: The God Lab

[bar-baronic]

I posted the parent and you are right scientifically speaking. I was thinking politically and legally, which is different. My error was not to specify.

From the Article:

"Such a counter-example, once published, would be available for citation by proponents of ID. Even if the citations do not appear in peer-reviewed literature, says [Barbara] Forrest [a philosopher at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond], they could still have an influence on politicians and school board officials, who might not be sensitive to this distinction."

Yes, science and the scientific method require reproducible results and peer-review to confirm or disprove a finding and/or conclusion. However, bureaucrats and judicial officials may not place the same level of importance on these validation techniques.

Bias still creeps into research from Climate Change to Pharmacological Studies. How many times have tobacco, alcohol and any other vice lobby groups offered "inconclusive" research as evidence in their legal arguments? These studies and research could level the arguments to a "He/She" stalemate in on the legal stage, at best or worse, set president to re-write laws. The court room will ultimately decide whether Evolution and/or Intelligent Design are taught in the classroom.

Re:Intelligent Design: The God Lab

[GigsVT]

The pro-prohibition groups are more guilty of weak science than the lobbies trying to keep them legal.

Did you read about the researcher that "accidentally" mixed up Meth with MDMA? The study talking about how MDMA damages the brain was highly cited by the prohibition establishment, and covered in the media as a "scare old people" story about how even one hit of Ecstasy is so damaging.

Re:Sure! Here's your alternative

[AndreyFilippov]

Yes, it does. But the state religion of the USSR has evolved from that really far. Maybe like the other state religion I had a chance to observe since I left the USSR? Disclaimer: Now I live in Utah, USA

Re:Sure! Here's your alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

Marxism had a description of how the world was created and the afterlife? I think your idea is a stretch.

Russian evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Darwin's theories don't apply in Russia. They have their own kind of evolution there. It's called Russian Evolution, or REvolution for short.

Freedom of Religion

[Hoi Polloi]

Glad to see Russia has freedom of religion (to some degree). Now you get to enjoy the flip side of it, religious fundies.

Alternative theories

[darCness]

Sorry, but those alternative "theories" aren't theories at all. Until they have some sound scientific backing, they're
going to remain what they are now: fiction. They want equal time for their beliefs? Pony up some sound evidence
that stands up to scientific rigor. Get it peer reviewed and provide the results of your repeatable experiments, then
complain. Put up or shut up, as it were.

How many hundreds of years has this been tried? Fairy tales are still fairy tales, no matter how hard you wish (or litigate).

School for Intelligent Design

[hiroller]

I simply do not understand why this issue is always brought up. The "theory of Intelligent Design" has a place where it is taught, and that is in church (or synagogue or temple). This, to me, is as inane as myself taking my priest to court because he talks about Adam and Even which "offends" my right to believe in evolution. Yes I know that a school is a public institution (and a church a private institution) but there is absolutely no credence behind "Intelligent Design" and really has no place in any institution that inspires learning and developing ideas. Creationsim is just too much of a dead-end theory to be in school.

"God created the world as it is today. Pay no attention to the fossils behind the curtain"

Leave creationsim in church. At least that way you are presented with two opposing alternatives and you can use your brain to choose between the two.

Another thing I wonder about: why does evolution disprove God(s) existence? How do we know he didn't design life to be this way, to adapt and spread? I never could understand why religion doesn't take hold of the theory and run with it."Look! God is so awesome he designed life to create the most complex creatures from the most basic of matter!" I guess it just goes against the flattering of the human ego to think that perhaps we are not created in the image of some diety.

Re:School for Intelligent Design

[Shados]

why does evolution disprove God(s) existence?

It doesn't, but it clashes with other beleifs religious people have. For example, I have a friend who's "independant batist", and is 100% positive and will swear on his own life, that the earth is no more than 5000 years old. So if you pop that evolution happened over millions of years, it clashes and he's not happy.

Just an example.

Re:School for Intelligent Design

[MLease]

"independant batist"

Does this mean you think he's batshit insane, or that he worships independent bats? Just wondering.... ;)

-Mike

Re:School for Intelligent Design

[Shados]

hahahahaha. Unfortunately, it only means I have the english spelling skills of your average 1st grader. I guess being french excuses me a little bit, but since almost everyone who lives in my area knows 3 languages or more, I still suck.

Re:School for Intelligent Design

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Actually, some religions have taken hold of the theory of evolution, including modern Catholicism.
Evolution cannot disprove God's existence. God's existence cannot be disproven. Modern scientists only want to work with things that, in theory, can be disproven, and so they have to razor God out of their theories.
I like to think we are created in the image of a Deity. Unfortunately, we're mostly broken images.

Re:School for Intelligent Design

[tehcyder]

why does evolution disprove God(s) existence? How do we know he didn't design life to be this way, to adapt and spread? I never could understand why religion doesn't take hold of the theory and run with it."Look! God is so awesome he designed life to create the most complex creatures from the most basic of matter!" I guess it just goes against the flattering of the human ego to think that perhaps we are not created in the image of some diety.

I am no theologist, but I think the problem is that if God did indeed use Evolution, would it not have been mentioned in the Bible?

Re:Why do you think Russia's such a hot destinatio

[Apocalypse111]

This can easily go either way. You could instead have "Crusader" christians and "Allah is peace" muslims. It depends on the convictions of those behind the movement.

Re:Enough already!

[L7_]

they have girls in their classes.

Incorrect.

[geekoid]

"As I stated, I am a Christian, which means I know that God created man. "

no, you BELIEVE God created man. You can not know that, it's simple not possible through science, or biblically.If you knew it, you wouldn't need faith now, would you.

"All I ask is that you grant me the same respect and stop trying to tell me what I should be believing or that my belief system is somehow not compatible with reality."

if you dn't believe in natural selection, then you belief isn't compatible with rality, any more then believe magic invisble horses hold airplanes up is compatible with reality.

Or that there is a teapot circling the sun.

You, like most Christians, don't understand that the belief in Christ, and the followings of his teachings have NOTHING TO DO with anything in the old testiment.

You want to understand Genesis? go talk to a Rabbi.

If you want to believe in magic*, that's your business and fine by me, but do not try to move it into science class, or any government body.

*From dictionary.com
2. the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature.
Sounds a lot like prayer to me.

Re:Sure! Here's your alternative

[AndreyFilippov]

Actually, I got the idea that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is kind of a state religion after moving to Utah and watching similarity in many of the small everyday things. Different ideologies and goals, but visible features looked very similar to me. Authorities in the USSR never claimed to have communism - it was just a religious goal, an unreachable desire - and the people treated it accordingly, the reality of the communism was similar to the reality of the Heaven - you have to have faith in it.

Proof of...

[StupidMBA]

the stuidity of the "Funny" mod!

Look at my posting history. If the "Funny" mod were real points, I wouldn't be posting at '0' now - and maybe -1!

Some mod or two, thought I wasn't funny or whatever. OTH, some thought I was 'Funny', BUT, the mods who thought I wasn't, were able to make my initial posting '0' - zero, now negative one

If you agree with them; you agree with /. groupthink.

Have a nice day! I'll just start another account...

Yours Truly,

Ghost of MisanthroppicProgram.

Re:Proof of...

[Copid]

If it's any consolation, I thought "I HAVE SINNED!!!! GIVE ME MONEY!" was the funniest thing I've read all day.

Of course, I read slashdot with a huge bonus given to funny posts. I don't come here for the occasional insightful comment or expert's insider opinion. It's mostly just geeks spouting off. Geeks spouting off can be pretty damned hilarious, and that's good enough for me. Maybe we should give separate karma for people who score high on "funny" posts. I'd love to be able to assign a +1 modifier to people who are consistently entertaining.

The "insightful" stuff around here is wrong half the time anyway.

No, can't say that.

[jd]

It would mean the joke was evolving, rather than being intelligently designed.

Re:Sure! Here's your alternative

[deevnil]

Capitalism is sort of a religion, everybody treads the mill hoping that one day someone will notice what a hard worker they are and promote them. Predictably, you are rewarded with more work, and your motivator is instead compensated for a wonderful job. Don't talk shit about capitalism though or the wealthy will tear into you about the day or two they had to actually do something and broke a sweat. You'll never hear the end of it.

Unify

[bigmauler]

One thought we will have
One goal we strive for
One idea we have
One way for us all
One belief
One and only one.
Crush the opposition.
One theory for us all united as one.

Piles of evidence??

[EL_mal0]

I would like to see some of your evidence. If everybody keeps saying that you can't disprove God, your evidence to the contrary is a true breakthrough.

I am a scientist (geologist). I like to think of myself as a rational and logical person, yet I still believe in God. Why? Because I have interpreted feelings I have had and events I have experienced as supporting the hypothesis that God exists. For example, when I am living a "good" life (scripturally speaking) I feel better and have a greater capacity to deal with all the crap life throws at me. This is an observation. I interpret this to be evidence that I'm being blessed for doing what I'm supposed to. That's what good scientists do; take available observations and interpret them.

Go ahead and argue that I'm interpreting things wrong, but I don't see what piles of evidence you're sitting on proving that faith and interlligence (not scientifict fact - different from truth, IMHO) are mutually exclusive.

Re:Piles of evidence??

[Anonymous Coward]

"I am a scientist (geologist). I like to think of myself as a rational and logical person, yet I still believe in God."

Just because you like to think it, doesn't make it so. I'd like to think I'm sexually attractive to Jessica Alba, but she still hasn't called me. Admitting you believe in a diety makes a mockery of your claim to being a scientist. If science ever proved the existence of a god, your faith would be vindicated, but not your claim to being a scientist, as scientists only believe in that which is proven, and you believed even though it was unproven. Faith and science are mutually exclusive. It's a law.

Re:Piles of evidence??

[Anonymous Coward]

As a geologist you should realize that your faith and your profession do not mix. Some creationists believe that the continental plates are floating on water, would you say their beliefs are as equal as your emperical evidence of a hot mantle and lead/iron core? As a scientist you should realize that the scientific process is completely incompatible with religion. If you think so I challenge you to provide a repeatable experiment to prove the existence of a god or gods, and if so form a theory on which god it is.

It's impossible to disprove god, just like it's impossible to disprove UFOs, the Boogey man, Leprechauns, unicorns, the spaghetti monster, etc. However the lack of any evidence outside of what exists in the human imagination would suggest that a god does not exist.

Why stop there?

[msobkow]

There are thousands of creation myths around the world, ranging from Inuit legends of lady who married a dog and eventually giving birth to all life in the oceans to tales of aliens seeding the primordial ooze.

Unless someone can actually prove a theory or myth is true or false, it's believers will not change their mind. What matters is whether they become classroom tyrants trying to push their viewpoint on the whole class.

Personally I don't think the general outline of Biblical creationism disagrees with evolution. I think of it as God influencing quantum dynamics, tweaking genetics through random mutation. Others think of it as the results of systemic randomness, pruned over time by how well an organism fills a niche in the ecosystem. The reality of life is the same either way.

I just wish those who read ancient texts as being literal truth would wake up. At a minimum they were written by humans, translated, edited, and tweaked over centuries or millenia. The odds of the current phrasing being true to the original tales related by those inspired to tell them are very, very small.

You can't even pass a comment through 10-15 "generations" of gossip in the old rumour game. What are the odds of 1000 year old story (50 generations of 20 years) being passed on accurately before it's written down, presuming that every single translation since then has been 100% accurate?

Re:Waste. Of. Breath.

[Anonymous Coward]

Faith does not only mean faith in a God.

In science, there can be no place for faith. I call bullshit! Many scientists have faith in their hypothosis, otherwise they wouldn't try to prove them.

You are a fool for saying: There is black, there is white, there is no gray.

Re:Sure! Here's your alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism really isn't about exploiting morons(it happens, but it isn't about that), it is about resource allocation.

The idea with capitalism is that people with a lot probably got it somehow, so letting them try to get more is a good way to find out if they were lucky, or if they are good at getting stuff; if they are good at getting stuff, they will generally do it with less effort than people who are bad at it, and the people who are bad at it end up stopping, so you get a nice efficient process. People who are lucky often end up unlucky later, and they end up with less decision making power. Cheaters often win.

Communism on the other hand, also seems to let the most corrupt allocate resourses, but with the pretense that they are doing it to be nice, rather than to be greedy assholes.

The whole point is moot

[CrazedWalrus]

However-- evolution theory says NOTHING about the start. Exactly!

Evolution doesn't say anything about biogenesis, and really, I've never heard a half-decent scientific hypothesis to deal with it, either. It's all conjecture.

Natural selection happens, yes. Anyone with eyes can see it. But what was first? Where did it come from? How did it start? Nobody knows.

The Big Bang happened, yes. But what was before that? Where did the particles come from? Nobody knows.

That's the stuff of religion. Natural selection does nothing to disprove the creation; indeed, it has nothing to do with creation -- just with generational life processes. Oddly enough, the genesis story does coincide with the likely order that nature evolved. That it says 7 days instead of 10 eons or whatever is really just a red herring.

The real issue where religion and science meet is that science can only describe what it can observe and predict. The thought that something outside our observation, even outside our universe as we understand it, got the whole ball rolling and still influences it is incompatible with scientific theory because it's non-falsifiable (and also "non-provable"). That this something has a mind and free will also makes it unpredictable.

So we come to an impasse. Or do we? Maybe the creation story in Genesis exists to give us the basic idea of the creation, and to make us curious about it, or to satisfy our natural curiosity with a story that even a child can understand. Maybe science exists to fill in the blanks, to write the real story of the creation.

I personally don't think that the Biblical version and the Scientific version will end up very far apart after all. We just need to get past the hyperbole and the confusion of "biogenesis" with "evolution".

Re:The whole point is moot

[WiFiBro]

"Natural selection happens, yes. Anyone with eyes can see it. But what was first? Where did it come from? How did it start? Nobody knows.

The Big Bang happened, yes. But what was before that? Where did the particles come from? Nobody knows.

That's the stuff of religion."

I get the impression that you are trying to get some middle path between science and your belief in God. This you share with many people in history who, like you, accepted what their eyes saw rather than the strict words of the Bible. And in certain eras and/or parts of the world such an attitude is brave, especially were people are very strict about His Word.
But such pressure does not help in truth-finding, and neither does the attribution of the unknown to any sort of unexplainable Being.
Remember the homunculi? People did not understand how life started. With the microscope they watched sperm. There was a discussion whether the start of a baby, a tiny tiny little person, was in the semen or in the egg. Some people were convinced they saw it sitting there. Now it is generally accepted that these are singular cells which fuse and grow into a human shape.
People seem to have a tendency to explain the part they do not understand yet by projecting something like that. I think you are doing the same with using God for explaining what you judge science has no full and tested explanation for.

And I also observe that many of the things people were totally convinced were caused by an active God in the past, are now explained in natural laws. Thunder. Vulcanoes. The sun 'going up'.

For me the most likely explanation of religion is that people have some natural tendency to invent stories to explain things, and especially in need are trying to put the cause of things outside of their control.
I see no reason why the things you are now showing as some sort of proof of some sort of God are in any way more special than what people used to say. You might be able to help me by pointing to indications that they are.

Religions give a very strong story that survived for a long time. I think this is not caused by God, if he could he would have made sure there was only one version of religion, and not different religions and quite some types of Christians. I think the story is helping people face the inexplicable things of life, and the unfairness of what is happening in their life or that of others. And somehow they are very flexible in wht they claim is caused by God.

"Maybe the creation story in Genesis exists to give us the basic idea of the creation, and to make us curious about it, or to satisfy our natural curiosity with a story that even a child can understand. Maybe science exists to fill in the blanks, to write the real story of the creation."

You might like the book 'Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life' by evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, he was also trying find a way to have both science and religion. He said something like they are two seperate magistra's and should not overlap, but both have their place.
But however much i liked Gould's other books, and however much i also want to believe in some wise superbeing, I don't like this, i think it is running away from reality.

Re:The whole point is moot

[Bush Pig]

> The Big Bang happened, yes. But what was before that? Where did the particles come from? Nobody knows.

If I understood Hawking ("A Brief History of Time"), before the Big Bang there was ... nothing. No time, no space, no matter. In fact, the question has no meaning.

> I personally don't think that the Biblical version and the Scientific version will end up very far apart after all.

Hmm ... they already are far apart, and can only get further apart. The scientific version of creation (for want of a better word) relies on the notion that a very simple self-replicating molecule or structure can mutate (ie, randomly change), and if this mutated copy is fitter for survival and replication than its "parent" it will supplant other, unchanged, copies. Thus, something very simple (eg, a biggish organic molecule) can evolve over billions of years into something quite complex (eg a human being). If you insert an extra assumption that a pre-existing, fully-formed, extremely complex, being (eg a god) created that first, simple, self-replicating molecule, you're left with the rather large problem of explaining where that creator came from. If you posit that it was always there, you may as well assume that, instead, the universe was always there (in some form or other) or that the first self-replicating molecule just happened by itself (not so improbable over the 4 billion or so years the Earth has been here). Otherwise you're left with an infinite regression (it's gods all the way down).

I recommend you read something written by an evolutionary biologist. I'd suggest Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker", followed by "The God Delusion". Or you could start with a philosopher as I did 40-odd years ago, with Bertrand Russell's essay "Why I am not a Christian".

Re:The whole point is moot

[jtev]

Your blind seperation of religion and science is quite disturbing. Especialy when you consider that the basis of modern science is found in the natural philosophers, primarily monks and clergymen, who were seeking to better understand the mind of god, and the eventual date of judgment day. I mean, if one truly wishes to be godly, how can they close their eyes to what god has created, and force themselves not to try to understand it. Of course I also feel that God doesn't require faith, Man requires having faith. God doesn't require anything of us, except for us to be what we are. After all, that's how he created us.

Re:The whole point is moot

[QuoteMstr]

Your blind amalgamation of religion and science is quite disturbing. Especialy when you consider that the basis of modern religion is found in the cloistered theologians, primarily monks and clergymen, who were seeking to better understand the mind of god, and the eventual date of judgment day. I mean, if one truly wishes to be wise, how can they close their eyes to what science has discovered, and force themselves not to try to understand it. Of course I also feel that science doesn't require faith, God requires having faith. Science doesn't require anything of us, except for us to be what we are. After all, that's how we found it.

Re:The whole point is moot

[CrazedWalrus]

Thanks for your well-reasoned response. I so expect to get trolled on these discussions! You made a lot of good points, and this is really a discussion that could take days.

I get the impression that you are trying to get some middle path between science and your belief in God. You got the right impression, but sort of misread my motivation. I'm not just trying to find a compromise or fill in the blanks; I really do think there's more to life than meets the eye. Like I said, it's difficult for the scientific mind to consider the possibility of a being that is outside the normal cause and effect of the universe. At first glance, Occam's Razor implies that this is just too much of a leap, and that there must be a more simple explanation. Try as I might, though, I can't bring myself to believe that. Spontaneous biogenesis caused by random cosmic chemicals that all happened to be in the right place at the right time, for me, is as much a leap of faith as creation. The odds against such a thing happening seem to me to be insurmountable. Given that, I actually read Occam's Razor the other way: something I don't know about must have caused it on purpose.

I'm never quite sure how to express this, so I guess I'll just hope you catch my drift. Science is using hindsight to try to determine how a set of highly improbable events took place a long time ago, and in what order. I think we'd all agree that we're all extremely lucky that things worked out in such a way that life happened and was sustainable -- not that we'd have ever known otherwise. I guess how I tend to reconcile the religious view with the scientific history is best summed up by "God is in the probabilities". In other words, I see the universe as being a set of rules that God has defined and decided to work with. If you've done that, you can't just go sticking your hands in there and shove things around -- it upsets the balance of things. Rather, you give it a bit of a nudge in just the right places to make things go the way you want them to.

I think a major thing to be learned from the Bible is that God tends to work over time and circumstance. It took thousands of years to develop the bloodline for Jesus. It took thousands of years to set the right characters on the stage at the right time -- characters who came from all over the world and wound up playing a central part in the Salvation story. Science looks at the same set of events and calls it coincidence, or that current events are merely a product of history. What it can't see is the hand that guided that history, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The only way to see it is to look at events that were "happy coincidence" and wonder if that's really all it was. There's certainly no way to prove it, except that the happy coincidences add up, and it makes you wonder.

On a side note, you talk about religion being a sort of psychological safety net when everything is going wrong. In that, I think you're mostly correct, though a little too cynical. With all of the Christian bashing that goes on here, I think people lose sight of the fact that most Christians are kind-hearted people who genuinely care about others and want to help. The context of religion connects people into a social general-purpose support group, whose members try to help others when they're having trouble. I've heard that there's been a rise in depression in developed countries, and sometimes I can't help but wonder if it's because people no longer take part in this support system. It used to be that people would talk to trusted friends at church or the pastor. Since religion's been getting such a bad rap, though, I wonder at the falling numbers in one area and the climbing numbers in another.

Anyway, it's 4:15am where I am. I'm only awake because our baby decided I should be, so I hope this post is at least semi-coherent.

Take care.

Re:The whole point is moot

[jtev]

A few points

1. I'm not saying anyone should close their eyes to anything. In fact I'm stating specificaly that in order to propery understand God one MUST study the world that God created.
2. No, modern religions are based on the dreams of various mystics, the teachings of a Jewish carpenter, the teachings of an Egyptian prince, The teachings of an Indian prince, and the teacings of an Arab merchant. These have been interpreted by various theologians and clergy, however the basis still remains. If you don't know what specific historical persons I'm talking about, check Wikipedia.
3. The existance of a supreme being does not require that any have faith in that supreme being. He either exists or he doesn't. Faith in that being may help people to be better people, but a lack of faith does not mean that there is no god.

Re:The whole point is moot

[WiFiBro]

hi CrazedWalrus,
I must say, your response is very coherent for somebody with a baby at 04:15 AM :). And I think you have thought more about these things than many other people. I cannot poke holes in the coherency but i do disagree with you at several vital points.
I too feel some things are not explained, to be specific, science has provided some nice details on how our brains work, but no full explanation of why we are conscious. But neither does the explanation of the soul and God give a full explanation: it only adds a mystery. I want to be convinced that that added mystery is really necessary as well as likely.

"...it's difficult for the scientific mind to consider the possibility of a being that is outside the normal cause and effect of the universe. "
I was brought up as a christian, though in a very liberal church (http://www.remonstranten.org/introduction/index.h tml). So in my life i first learned about what the bible says, and science had the disadvantage of having to try to change what was already put in my mind. Especially the very reductionistic views failed to change my mind, like the Selfish Gene theory, and I remember being very angry about a science class poster claiming that being in love was nothing more than chemistry (literally). It makes life seem so cold, mechanical. It does not add to a happy and meaningful life. So my formerly believing brain took some time to turn into the cynical wannabe-rational bastard i am now.

"At first glance, Occam's Razor implies that this is just too much of a leap, and that there must be a more simple explanation. Try as I might, though, I can't bring myself to believe that. Spontaneous biogenesis caused by random cosmic chemicals that all happened to be in the right place at the right time, for me, is as much a leap of faith as creation."

There's no way we can ever find out what really happened to start life on earth, but I can live with that. There are several proposals that sound plausible to me, and cosmic chemicals are not necessary, but hey, how many of these enter our atmosphere in a century? Loads.
The external force you propose, on the contrary, can be falsified nor proven AND adds nothing to the explanation of life, it just adds another mystery.

"The odds against such a thing happening seem to me to be insurmountable."

The first reproducable precursor of life, theoretically, only had to happen once. One tiny cluster of molecules that could somehow replicate. Once it was there it could reproduce and thus spread and evolve. Maybe it looked totally different than what we now know as the most primitive life-forms. Others have written better about this than I can, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob. html#Intro
See, once the basis was there, there it was, and as you accept natural selection, the only thing you were missing is some plausible starting point.
So I want to turn the odds around. What you call 'being there at the right time and in the right place' only had to happen at one time at one place. Give a huge ocean full of likely starting material during many million years, and make a calculation of the chance it does NOT happen at least once!

"Given that, I actually read Occam's Razor the other way: something I don't know about must have caused it on purpose."
I think that is exactly what i oppose to, that's what made people propose a homunculus.
Solving a mystery by proposing a black box does not solve the mystery, it only adds to it.

""God is in the probabilities". In other words, I see the universe as being a set of rules that God has defined and decided to work with. If you've done that, you can't just go sticking your hands in there and shove things around -- it upsets the balance of things. Rather, you give it a bit of a nudge in just the right places to make things go the way you want them to."

The part of a balanced situati

Re:The whole point is moot

[WiFiBro]

      1. I know no indication that this word is written by non-humans, on the contrary.

      3. And there are those with faith who claim that their supreme being approves or even stimulates disrespect to those who don't share the same faith in the same being. That's what turns some of those into intolerant people willing to start wars, justified by their respective supreme being.

Anyway I'ld rather continue the more intelligent branch with CrazedWalrus.

Re:The whole point is moot

[WiFiBro]

Someone with mod points tries to make a point by modding me overrated twice. Hope it makes you feel good.

Re:The whole point is moot

[CrazedWalrus]

Someone with mod points tries to make a point by modding me overrated twice. Hope it makes you feel good.
 
  Heh - me too. My original post is somewhat Insightful, somewhat Informative, but overwhelmingly Overrated. :-) These things happen. People don't like what someone's saying, so they feel the need to censor it. I think I'll change my sig to "Fight the tyranny of the moderating elite! Browse at -1!" ...or something silly like that.

Re:The whole point is moot

[CrazedWalrus]

I too feel some things are not explained, to be specific, science has provided some nice details on how our brains work, but no full explanation of why we are conscious.

The Bible explains this as the "Breath of God" -- that added bit that chemistry couldn't provide. I've heard people make a differentiation between "Spirit" and "Soul", but honestly, I never understood that, and have always considered them one and the same with consciousness, or "Me". Again, I assume that thought patterns can be explained by millions of electrical impulses filtered through some sort of Bayesian-esque statistical models, but that still doesn't preclude the possibility of something "behind" them (i.e. a lower-level cause). The real thoughts could be happening in our spirits/souls, and they are impressed on the brain via some mechanism, and are manifested in the impulses we can see with EEGs.

An example: I can explain the actions of a robot by analyzing the electrical impulses across the circuit boards. "When power crosses bus A, the arm moves counterclockwise...", or by watching the cause and effect of certain branches on the CPU, but that doesn't give me the program, or - more importantly - the programm*er*. It just gives me a cause and effect that is a couple levels removed from the original logic. Once running, the program is self contained, and makes no reference to the programmer, and really only *hints* at the presence of a program at all. Really, the actions of the robot could be completely random, but fortuitously, the actions are useful for building BMWs. It's via the observer's logic and intuition that a program is inferred.

If all I have is the robot running in a factory making BMWs, I can either assume some sort of AI, or that someone is directing this thing's motion -- either directly, or according to a predetermined program. Assuming someone on the opposite end -- either currently or in the past -- I still can't tell you anything about them except what I can infer through the robot's construction and actions. Was the programmer male or female? How old? Still alive? Was there more than one? How many?

Certainly, for something like a robot, we wouldn't assume that the robot happened by accident, so a programmer or operator is a foregone conclusion. Likewise, with our bodies, wonderful machines themselves, we can observe nerve impulses in the cortexes, see muscles work, etc, but is this operating itself? Are these things the *cause*? Or are they the *effect* of other actions we can't see directly, and must infer -- like the operator moving a joystick that causes activity in the CPU (our brains -- sciences first observable point) that causes x,y, and z? Like all analogies, this breaks in a lot of places, but I hope it illustrates my reasoning.

The first reproducable precursor of life, theoretically, only had to happen once.

Sure. From what I hear about the conditions on early earth, though, the reality is that this thing probably would have had to a) form an incredible number of times, or b) reproduce hella quick.

Your linked article notes that the probability of randomly forming a simple peptide is 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40, which is "still orgulously, gobsmackingly unlikely" unless done in a massive number of parallel trials, which was likely the case, so (a) it is. I had always envisioned these chemicals being present in much small quantities/concentrations than your link states, so I'm willing to change my mind in favor of better information.

Others have written better about this than I can...

This is then cranked up by adding on the probabilities of generating 400 or so similar enzymes until a figure is reached that is so huge that merely contemplating it causes your brain to dribble out your ears.

That was pretty much my direction, yes. :) I need to thank you for the linked article. It explained a lot of things I either hadn't understood, or hadn't been aware of at al

Re:The whole point is moot

[WiFiBro]

Your sandbox observer reminds me of Plato's allegory of the cave, I'm sure you heard of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave ). In that case we would be the prisoners and you would say the shadows are caused by an intelligent being and I would be thinking they were independent beings. I would have meticously explored the lower part of the cave and did not see the puppetplayers up there. But I'm stubborn and say: "Show me the puppetplayer! You've been looking in to the flickering flames for too long." Hopefully you can show me were to look to find the players.

I'm not entirely sure what role you say God plays in evolution. Is He the hidden motivator who started it and nudges it subtly? How much does he interfere, before and after the flood (the rainbow promise)?

The examples you gave of complex structures were summarised in this line:
> In other words, knowing how a thing works doesn't mean
> it wasn't designed to work that way.

You can never ever rule out a designer, but is it the most likely?
Are we like the robot you describe? If we were designed, would our females have birth channels that are often too small for our big heads? Would one of our human chromosomes look exactly like a fusion of two ape chromosomes, complete with telomeres in the middle? Don't you agree that imperfections like that confirm a chaotic process of trial and error, that was at least not totaly steered by the hand of God? If God was just nudging us in the direction of His image, how did we ever get as far from the apes as we feel we are?

About complexity, which is one of the major arguments of ID: biologists have a pretty complete story from Ur-cell to humans. If you take evolution step by step and assume the selection optimizes things enough to make an individual the 'fittest', it is easy to see why we are well adapted to the circumstances on earth, and how enzymes in circumstances be very efficient. It also explains why we have inefficient eyes even though the octopus has a better designed eye: that was a different path in the evolution.
(Ok, one can say our eyes are good enough for us...)

My next step is, if accepting intelligence, were did that intelligence then come from? Did that evolve, or was it created? Why did you pick the Christian God, is it because you were brought up with it? What will happen to you in the afterlife if the muslims were right, or the pagans?

In a cartoon with a serious undertone Calvin (Calvin & Hobbes) refuses to eat chicken. His parents demand him to say why. Calvin: "What if God is a giant chicken? Eternal consequences! That's why!"

> Again, I assume that thought patterns can be explained by millions of electrical impulses
> filtered through some sort of Bayesian-esque statistical models,

I read about such explanations of consciousness, it is favourite among the most reductionists among scientists, but at this point it is no less a black box than a soul is. It lacks the same mechanism as the soul-brain interface you propose.
As I said, this is the big remaining question for me.

> Your linked article notes that the probability of randomly forming a simple peptide is
> 1 chance in 4.29 x 10^40, which is "still orgulously, gobsmackingly unlikely" unless done
> in a massive number of parallel trials, which was likely the case, so (a) it is. "

I'm afraid that's not the best quote to support your viewpoint. If you reread that paragraph you will see it starts with 'So the calculation goes that...'
and ends with 'However, this is completely incorrect.'
I.e. this paragraph paraphrases the creationist argumentation, and the author proceeds to explain why he thinks this is incorrect.

"...I see now that primordial Earth (and really, modern Earth) are "God's Beowulf cluster"."
lol :)

>> The part of a balanced situation that even God should not meddle too much in is a
>> very

Re:The whole point is moot

[jtev]

As for your refutation of point one, you should re-read what I wrote. I said the worLd that god created, not the word. One little letter, lots of meaning. As for your alleged refutation of the third, I never said that humans aren't wreched creatures who will do whatever they want and find any justification they can for it. In fact you didn't refute anything at all that I wrote. Actualy I find any sort of zelotry quite annoying, and that's why I'm twitting you. I mean, the evidence of catastrophism is quite clear and marked in the fosil record, and yet you seem to be espousing the gradualist doctorine of Charles Darwin, of which there is no support. And further you are failing to provide rational support for your position. You instead misinterpret my statements, and show your true zelotry to the church of sticking your fingers in your ears. By the way, if you were making as poor of arguments on the other side, well, there would be someone else taking you apart, but if not, I'd be more than happy to do that to.

Can't we just shoot Creationists?

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

The world would be a better place and the Creationists would get the martyrdom they crave. Everyone wins.

not all that secular

[misanthrope101]

They were secular in that didn't like religion, but not secular in the "we defer to science" meaning of the word. Communism, or rather the Soviet party line, was for all practical purposes the state-mandated religion. Science was suborned completely to political doctrine. Stalin banned the teaching of evolution. On a side note, Hitler also opposed Darwinism.

Societies like this that revolve around a cult of personality can't tolerate alternative belief systems to explain anything--everything, whether religion or science, has to be subordinate to politics, or be destroyed. I know the creationists (Hovind comes to mind) love to say that Stalin and Hitler were evolutionists, but they weren't--they opposed science as well, though they did like to couch their bizarro theories in pseudo-scientific langauge. A lot of religious people like to credit dictators' lack of religion for their brutality, but being a power-hungry paranoid maniac with delusions of grandeur may have just a teensy-weensy more to do with it.

Soviet Mass Starvation was mostly deliberate

[billstewart]

Sometimes there were crop failures, due to a wide range of competence problems with "scientific socialism", and the war obviously led to starvation as well as deaths from bombs and guns, but the main events of mass starvation during the Stalinist period were deliberate - groups of farmers that didn't cooperate with collectivism, or were rich enough that the Communists were jealous of them, got deprived of their animals and land, and either killed, sent to Siberia, or left to starve. Wikipedia article on kulaks.

Re:Waste. Of. Breath.

[Anonymous Coward]

A scientist who has faith in the validity of his hypothesis is little better than a religious believer.

A hypothesis is proposed. It is then tested. If it survives testing, has ample evidence to support it (observation, experimentation, reproducibility), then it _may_ be accepted as a valid theory by the scientist's peers.

But there's no room for faith in there.

A genuine scientist will ditch his/her own hypothesis at the earliest opportunity should it not withstand scrutiny, because it's not about anything besides discovering the facts.

Unfortunately human nature has a habit of interfering with the pure scientific method, and much science becomes ego-driven, and not much different from the fantasyland of religion.

Anti-Evolution Suit

[DeadboltX]

Where can I buy one of these Anti-Evolution Suits?
Will it protect my DNA from evolving and prevent my offspring from, say, developing a 3rd eye?

Hypocrisy

[Bryansix]

I understand what you are saying but remember that it is the people who back the Theory of Evolution who constantly say that it HAS been proven to be True.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Fafnir43]

It depends what you mean by "proven". The scientific method can't technically prove anything. However, it can give overwhelming evidence in favour of something. For example, we have no proof that the sun will come up tomorrow. What we do have is enough evidence to convince any sane person. This preponderance of evidence is often referred to as a "proof". Another example: suppose a man is on trial for murder. Seventeen people say they saw him do it, the police have a bloody knife covered in his fingerprints, and the first words out of his mouth when he was arrested were "I'm glad I killed the bastard". Again, technically, we have no proof that he was the murderer. The witnesses could be lying, someone else could have used the knife to murder the victim while wearing gloves, and the "bastard" he was referring to may have been an irritating housefly. But can you see why, in the absence of other evidence, we may colloquially refer to this as a "proof" in the interests of clear communication?

As I understand it, the Theory of Evolution has been "proven" at about that level of certainty. The problem with the statement that creationists want teachers to read (that it hasn't been 'proven') is that it implies that alternative theories (e.g. creationism) have a non-negligible chance of being true, and that evolution has substantially less scientific evidence than, for example, gravity. This would be utterly false, regardless of whether you believe there is philosophical evidence for creationism. We should not endeavour to teach our children massive falsehoods, either explicitly or implicitly, so your statement fails.

I would, however, welcome a separate mention on the curriculum of the philosophy of science - the differences between the reasons for accepting a scientific theorem and the reasons for accepting a logical proof, details of the scientific method and so on and so forth. As long as it is made clear that these issues affect the whole of science, and that students may reject individual theories on the basis that they "haven't been proved" only by rejecting the whole of science, then I feel children can only benefit from exposure to them.

Re:Hypocrisy

[Bryansix]

Point and case.

Re:Sure! Here's your alternative

[bjohnson]

Actually, if you are to believe Ken Abilek, and he should know, they were scary GOOD at biology. Unfortunately, they were making things like souped-up ebola instead of three-assed monkeys.

Re:Sure! Here's your alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, a form of lysenkoism is now a part of standard genetic theory - epigenetics.
There are studies showing heritable traits from environmentally-induced changes to DNA (eg. DNA methylation) through to circulating RNA (yep, that one's a mindblower)!

Genetics is much more interesting than your high school science classes would have you believe :)

Re:Sure! Here's your alternative

[AndreyFilippov]

Thank you, but I neither complain no apologize for the place where I'm born. And I'm proud to be Russian.

Re:Waste. Of. Breath.

[Anonymous Coward]

A hypothesis is proposed. It is then tested. If it survives testing, has ample evidence to support it (observation, experimentation, reproducibility), then it _may_ be accepted as a valid theory by the scientist's peers.
...
A genuine scientist will ditch his/her own hypothesis at the earliest opportunity should it not withstand scrutiny, because it's not about anything besides discovering the facts. That is correct, however scientists should and will have faith that the hypothesis is a)valid and/or b)logical based on what they know/understand. i.e. "I think this should work, lets test it." == "I have faith it should work, lets test it."

Re:Waste. Of. Breath.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think this should work, lets test it." == "I have faith it should work, lets test it."

Absolutely false.

You should have said:

"This may work, let's test it."

Anything else ("This should work...", "I have faith it should work...") is tantamount to a preconceived notion.

We get an idea, we test it, we develop or discard the idea based upon the results of the testing. To do otherwise is unscientific and dishonest.

Here's what's proven

[PopeRatzo]

Religionists might have it a bit easier if they weren't so provably dopey. But that's what happens when you lock yourself into the notion that a parable that's meaningful to living a good life is a description of reality.

As a believer, it pains me to see so many people giving Faith a bad name with this kind of dopiness.

Re:Sure! Here's your alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I think we got mixed up. I wasn't referring to you as you have every right to be proud of Russia. I was actually referring to my fellow asshat American a few posts above you that was grovelling about how he was a 'bloody uneducated American'. Non-Americans must really get tired of hearing that crap all the time. Not only does it sound disingenuous as it is not much of a secret that America is also a great nation and despite its flaws does give hope to many people, but the over-compensation exhibited by many Americans about how they are ignorant or uneducated or whatever is just pitiful.

Imagine if every fellow Russian you knew constantly apologized for Stalin or kept saying, "now, I know I'm just an ignorant Russkie" wouldn't that get on your nerves after a while. Especially being aware of all the positive things Russia and the former USSR brought to the world. Now put yourself in my shoes.

You live in Utah, which admittedly isn't exactly the nicest place in America (I know, I've been there on many occasions), so you know America isn't entirely like it's made out to be by many Americans that wish to disparage it seemingly out of a misplaced desire to be cool or accepted amongst their international peers. What happens is that the very people they are trying to impress with their unverisimilitous bullshit laugh at them for fools behind their backs. I've seen it too many times. It's really pathetic.

religous freedom

[timmarhy]

you have your religous freedom. your free to believe in any god you want. so stay the fuck away from science. they 2 aren't the same thing. creationism is not science, it's a belief, end of story. i think the core of this problem, is nutcases like this guy are deathly afraid of anything that proves their beliefs wrong.

Natural Selection != Evolution

[Bryansix]

Nobody with half a brain will refute Natural Selection. However Natural Selection does not infer Evolution Directly. What if things happened in reverse of what you think and there were an infinite number of species and Natural Selection has dwindled that down to what we have now? I know there are problems with that Hypothesis but I'm just saying that Natural Selection as a Theory has nothing to say about how diversity came about. Granted most people take for granted that beneficial mutations created the diversity; however this is an entirely different hypothesis.

The point here is that we could have been intelligently designed and the Theory of Natural Selection doesn't disprove this. Furthermore there are a ton of rather strong arguments for the existence of a god nevermind the very strong historical arguments based in facts for the existence of the Christian God. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_prophecy_in _Christianity and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_prophecy

This was the teacher's first mistake ...

[ScrewMaster]

The teacher of the science class had apparently even taken the step of stating at the start of the school year that there were other theories on the origin of life.

I'm sure the instructor was only trying to stave off possible litigation and other problems, but that kind of statement opens the door for creationist claptrap, and only serves to embolden anyone that is thinking of making trouble. I think the teacher should have said something more along the lines of, "this is a science class. It will involve the study of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. There are other 'theories', but none of them have any scientific backing whatsoever and are best discussed in theology class."

Personally, I believe in the right to worship your God in your own way, here in the United States or anywhere else. It's a good idea, and it has worked well for the U.S. Our Constitution enshrines that right for all citizens of this nation, and perhaps someone more knowledgeable can enlighten me as to how Russia fares in this regard. Regardless, the right to believe as you wish, to worship as you wish, does have limits and our Creationist friends have definitely crossed the line.

Here's the catch: religious freedom does not include the right to interfere with the educational process in a matter which is clearly outside the purview of that freedom, by attempting to superpose a dogma that is a work of pure fiction. If you're one of those people just be honest with yourself, if not with the rest of us: the facts are not on your side. If you don't want your kids to believe in evolution (or any other well-established scientific theories or laws with which you happen to disagree ... I suggest you start with Newton's Laws of Motion and work up from there) just take them out of the public system, and home-school the little tykes. That's preferable to subjecting other parent's children to your own ignorance/intolerance. Or, if you have more "faith" in your persuasive powers, simply use your own voice to provide the alternative viewpoints you're bellyaching about so publicly. Otherwise, you can all just butt out. School is not a platform for your quasi-religious political agenda, so just leave the kids alone.

The world cannot afford to step back to the days when the Church (pick one) persecuted the open-minded and ran progress into the ground, and it is becoming more and more obvious every day that that is exactly where the proponents of Creationism and "Intelligent Design" want to take us.

For my part, I want none of it. Let me point out, to all of the faithful out there, that I am not denigrating anyone's belief system or trying to say that there is no God or any of the other things of which I am no doubt about to be accused. Nor am I (in this missive at least) making any effort to defend the theory of Evolution. But keep this firmly in mind: when you subvert science and repurpose the public school system as tool for religious proselytization, you're offending my worldview, mine and that of others like me.

Friend of the Church

[KurdtX]

I think the most ironic thing is in his day, Darwin was recognized as the church as a great scientist, and is one of the few to have the honor of being buried in Westminster Abbey.

Atheism is not a "belief system"!

[Anonymous Coward]

How the FUCK many times does this have to be explained before people finally understand or admit it?

"Athiest" is a label created by cultists and slapped on people who do not believe in the idols or dieties the cultists worship.

Religious people chose to be religious. No matter how much they argue that point they will always be wrong, since NOBODY WAS EVER *BORN* RELIGIOUS.

The labeling and branding is all willingly theirs. They have no fucking right to try and label others who don't belong to their cult (or any other).

Those of us who aren't stupid enough to cling to lies about skyborne boogeymen and the like prefer a different title: "The Sane".

Thanks.

Re:Why do you think Russia's such a hot destinatio

[megaditto]

Praise the Lord (and pass the ammo).

Re: science

[noigmn]

Yes, I think creationists in general have totally misunderstood the point of science. As much as all scientists would love to know the absolute truths in the universe, wouldn't anyone, the point of science is to find explanations that fit the observations and use them to our gain. Darwinism and evolution isn't there to compete with religion or prove creationists wrong, it is there to help us understand the progression of life, which might then be used to perhaps improve our own genetics, find other planets that can harbor life, save animal species, etc. Science helps us do things on Earth. Removing evolution from schools because it doesn't feel right is like making the hunter hunt without a weapon and with a blindfold on. All it does is slow the process and make it more random, more dangerous and less effective.

No one makes you teach evolution in church. Because evolution belongs in a science curriculum. Just like creationism belongs a long way away from a science curriculum. There is no point mixing the two. Evolution is a scientific theory, like everything taught in science. It is based on observations, and used by people. Like you know the sun will come up in the morning because you observed that process occured on previous mornings. You can't guarentee that it will come up in the morning, but it is better to use the knowledge that you have than be shocked every morning when it rises and never learn the process.

Earth can't be in the center.

[Kadin2048]

Well actually you can show that the Earth is not in the center of the Universe, because you can watch the recession rates of various stars and quasars, and determine that some stars are receding from the Earth at a greater rate than others. If the Earth was indeed in the center of the Universe, than all stars would have to be expanding away from it at a basically equal rate. That there are some stars moving more slowly (with respect to our frame of reference) than others, we can show that we are not in the center, but are somewhere on one side of the center. I am fairly certain that this has been shown via redshifts and other Doppler effects.

Re:Earth can't be in the center.

[sportster]

While I don't see the importance of whether or not the earth is the center of the Universe, how can you say that it is not just because objects are moving away at different speeds? What says that all objects have to moving away from the center of the Universe at equal rates?

Re:Earth can't be in the center.

[QuoteMstr]

A long time ago, I read about a helpful analogy: imagine drawing several dots on a balloon, then inflating it. The two-dimensional surface of the balloon represents the universe, with the dots representing galaxies (or other structures). Considering only distance along the two-dimensional surface of the balloon, which dot is closest to the center? How would you even define the center? Extend that to three dimensions, and you might have an idea why the question itself, regarding the "center", is meaningless.

Re:Earth can't be in the center.

[rthille]

Those differential redshifts don't mean a thing, that's just because I'm the center of the universe and I'm a bit unbalanced!

Re:Earth can't be in the center.

[Kadin2048]

A reasonable question. But I think the easiest answer is just to say that assuming that the Earth is at the center of the Universe and the stars and galaxies are retreating from it at wildly different rates, introduces needless complication when compared to the more obvious solution.

It's possible to posit that the Earth is still at the center of the universe, but to do so leaves several questions open: first, why are the stars so unevenly distributed? It's easy to tell (with the naked eye, even) that the stars aren't evenly distributed throughout the sky. And with instruments you can tell that the galaxies aren't either. An Earth-centric Universe doesn't account for this. Second, you'd have to come up with a plausible explanation for why all the stars and galaxies on one side of the Earth are moving faster than ones on the other, if the Earth is indeed at rest (with respect to some absolute frame of reference).

Lacking answers to those two questions -- which are both elegantly answered by putting the Earth not at the center, but moving along somewhere near the edge -- the Earth-centered model is unsatisfying and therefore not well-regarded.

If you have two competing theories, and one of them explains more observations than the other, it's the way of science to go with the one that matches most of the data.

A good book to read on this subject is "Big Bang" by Simon Singh (the same guy who wrote 'Code Book,' which is likewise excellent). It goes through the history of the modern cosmological model and the ones which preceded it, and illustrates why the currently accepted one has supplanted the previous models.

Re:Rugged, easy-to-clean plastic laminates

[DJCacophony]

In Soviet Russia, GOD makes YOU!

Un-Orthodox

[CaptainCarrot]

The strange thing here is that there's nothing about Russian Orthodox dogma (which is the same as the dogma of every other Eastern Orthodox church) that requires its adherents to take Genesis literally. Some Orthodox writers have gone out of their way to try to explain away the evidence for evolution, but it's really a non-issue in most of the Orthodox world. So this is just weird.

I'm assuming here that the plaintiff is Orthodox just because if you were to randomly select a religious Russian person there's a high probability that's what he or she is. The German last name isn't particularly suggestive, since many Germans immigrated to Russia a very long time ago, including the ruling dynasty. So I'm really curious as to what's behind this.

It's all about marketing, see.

[nathan s]

If they called it an "anti-evolution suit" it might make more inroads among that population.;-)

OMG!

[Brandybuck]

The teacher of the science class had apparently even taken the step of stating at the start of the school year that there were other theories on the origin of life.

OMG! The sky if falling! Imminent destruction is upon us! Cats and dogs living together! Won't someone think of the Russian Children!?

Re:Sure! Here's your alternative

[Euler]

Interesting to consider the Soviet communist state as a religion. At first I dismissed your argument completely, most people are pretty clear on the differences between politics and religion. However, since I wasn't there I didn't experience it. But I would still call the communist state a competitor to religion for people's mind-share. This is supported by the communists' rabid oppresion of religous practice. A religion promises a higher power outside the confines of physical reality. Politics promises a human or scientific utopia that is equally unachievable, but doesn't require the denial of physical reality - just the denial of practical reality.

While the differences between politics and religion are subtle, and may support your argument, I think it's important to see them as a system of two distinct forces.

In the USA, politics is equally divided based on people who support religion, and those who deny it.

In both religion and politics, dogmatic commitment to beliefs prevent people from making the optimum choices.

Theodosius Dobzhansky must be rolling in his grave

[Chemicalscum]

It is ironic here that one of the greatest evolutionary biologists of the 20th Century, Theodosius Dobzhansky, was a devout Russian Orthodox believer.

God created man

[elmCitySlim]

Also, as people grow older, they all turn into women. So every old man you see is actually a woman. I forgot what American minister uttered these words...but i know he had more "theories".

An abundance of agreement...

[DementedChihuahua]

As most of the readers of /. obviously agree that evolution is the only show in town, I'm forced to wonder why we even bother giving this topic such attention. It certainly can't be for the minority of Creationists who hang about the fringes of reason attempting every few years to get evolution thrown out of schools! Ask yourself if this is even a topic for self-congradulatory debate with no 'real' opponents. Yes, crummy psudo-science should be thrown out--read: Creationism--and it isn't alright to be a bigot but to belabor the point can get to seem fanatical itself...

There Aren't Other Theories

[Anonymous Coward]

There aren't other theories for the origin of life. There are other beliefs, and the two are not the same. Theories have observation and evidence behind them. Beliefs can be any old irrational creation myth. I wish people would stop giving these people undue respect.

Intelligent Design Not Viable?

[IsoQuantic]

Hmmm...wonder why some here think "most of the /.ers" are non-believers. Has a poll been taken? I doubt many have taken the same amount of time they spent learning their compsci craft to at least understand the issues and the arguments for evolution vs. intelligent design. Knee-jerk reactions simply toady to the mob and do nothing to add to the discussion. See http://www.askmrreligion.com/ and mention in your request that you are a /.-er and your question will be answered without the usual donation fee.

Re:Intelligent Design Not Viable?

[arevos]

I doubt many have taken the same amount of time they spent learning their compsci craft to at least understand the issues and the arguments for evolution vs. intelligent design. Knee-jerk reactions simply toady to the mob and do nothing to add to the discussion. See http://www.askmrreligion.com/ and mention in your request that you are a /.-er and your question will be answered without the usual donation fee.

I don't think many /.ers see this as a religious question. Instead, it's more a case that they don't consider the science classroom an appropriate place to teach Intelligent Design, as ID is not a scientific theory.

Subject

[Legion303]

"The teacher of the science class had apparently even taken the step of stating at the start of the school year that there were other theories on the origin of life."

In that case, the student should be bitching about the teaching of abiogenesis, not the theory of evolution, which says nothing about the origin of life. Except I have a feeling abiogenesis isn't taught in this class, so perhaps the science teacher should learn a bit of science before attempting to teach it.

War of the memes

[cpghost]

So in a way, Russia fell to the level of the USA.

Yup. Fortunately, such developments are cyclic in nature. They come and go. Religious fundamentalism is having its 15 minutes of fame right now (make it more like 15 years or so, but you get the point), and will fade away once people get fed up with it. The few remaining fundies will eventually lose their political omph, and that's it.

From an evolutionary angle, science and (fundamentalist) religion are memes fighting against each other for survival and supremacy... It's a darwinisting world (of species AND ideas) after all.

Re:War of the memes

[4D6963]

Interesting, however, in some places of this darwinisting world like western Europe, religious fanatics are an endangered species and science doesn't have to fight either for supremacy or survival anymore.

Re:War of the memes

[cpghost]

Exactly!

There are a few more points to ponder:

• Science doesn't need our approval as a society to survive. Galileo Galilei being a good example here. Some theories may be unpopular every now and then, but if they're sound, they'll prevail in the end, no matter what.
• Interestingly, some religions will also prevail, no matter what; not because they need our approval, but because we -- as a society, or some individuals -- seem to need this way of thinking as well.

And here it starts getting interesting: Science and religion are two highly differing ways to view and interpret the world around us. But while they're differing, they're similar in a disconcerting way:

• A person thinking scientifically is highly skeptical and not inclined to accept a scientific theory without proof or at least very compelling evidence.
• A person thinking religiously is the very opposite: they tend to believe ideas without skepticism; the more unlikely that idea, the easier will it be adopted.

This is really not meant to be offensive -- and certainly not overgeneralizing --, but sometimes, it looks like science is in itself darwinistic, because theories have to struggle and survive the fiercest criticism before they become commonly accepted. OTOH religion is anti-darwinistic, because religious dogma is not put through the same skeptic mind. So it's no wonder that religion is not on friendly terms with darwinism: it's simply way too far from its way of thinking and working.

We can also see this from a humanistic perspective: when examining the world, we can adopt a skeptic and cautious attitude, or we can sometimes be uncareful and take our beliefs for the truth. We can think scientifically, or we can think religiously. While most of us here are scientists or people studying science, even we sometimes have fits of irrationality. Both tendencies are deep within the human psyche, and that's the reason there is a war of the memes. Perhaps it should be called instead a war of attitudes?

And this is not necessarily bad. We need both ways of thinking. Too much skepticism can be paralyzing at times, while faith can move a mountain. Too much faith can lead us to become lemmings jumping off the cliffs, while science and reason can help us survive. It's a duality that keeps humanity chugging along.

Re:War of the memes

[4D6963]

Unlike you, I think that religion is highly darwinistic. Because new religions and variations of religions (compare that to mutants) bore and die everyday, only the popular survive. It's not such an easy thing to make up a religion and make people accept it, people try all the time and few people really succeed. Of course from our point of vue protestantism or islam hardly could be wiped off the face of earth, but it doesn't mean religions are not subject to comparable laws as the animal reign, it's just that the big religions are religion's rats, cats and dogs, you wouldn't see these disappear anytime soon.

Anyways, you seem to think that religion is somehow necessary, and that one can only be skeptic or faithful. You probably wouldn't think so if you lived in such countries as England or France where people don't make a cheesecake out of either religion or science ;-)

Wrong reasons, right suit

[mapkinase]

Sure it is a flamebait article. Here is my contribution to it:

First of all, I disagree with notion that if something seemingly scientific seemingly contradicts some religion, it should not be taught in school.

Second, I am also pretty sure that obligatory public education should not teach topics that many people do not consider science, or at least it should be taught separately from valid science subjects. History is not a science, and it is taught separately, say, economics, antropology, sociology, psychology...

Macroevolution theory that clearly have as its subject a history of life, not life itself as opposed to microevolution, should be taught separately from biology as "History of life forms", for example.

Re:Sure! Here's your alternative

[mapkinase]

It was not a "state religion", it was a "cult". I know for many /.ers there is no difference, but nevertheless, those are two different things.

FSM!

[kikito]

I just can't believe that no one in the /. crowd brought this before, so let me do it. I believe that man and the universe was created by a supreme being called the Flying Spagetti Monster (FSM). I think that it should also be taught at schools as an alternative to evolution. www.venganza.org.

More converts to His Noodlyness' Goodness...

[chaeron]

This is wonderful news. The Russians can join the Konverts from Kansas and increase the ranks of the Pastafarians.

Anyone have this kid's (or the Russian Court's) mailing address? I want to send them a copy of the holy text The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

May they be Touched by His Noodly Appendage.

Ramen!

No, in Ukraine Gymnasium

[vityok]

No, in Ukraine Gymnasium is a common name for privately owned (or, commercial) secondary Schools.

Re:Sure! Here's your alternative

[renoX]

>it promised "Communism" in the "near future", not the afterlife, but it still was very similar.

Very similar as in 'totally different'?

You may have lived in USSR, but apparently you don't know that religions have usually:
- an afterlife promise for you: nothing like this in what you call 'state religion' (and no a better future for your children is something totally different).
- prayers: I fail to see where is the equivalent.
- myth with miracles such as walking on the water, resurrection, etc.

I've never been to USSR but for me saying that the personality cult of USSR is the same as a religion is grossly inaccurate..

Re: science

[Bush Pig]

> Darwinism and evolution isn't there to compete with religion or prove creationists wrong

No, it's a beneficial side-effect rather than the primary goal.

Are you serious?

[Descalzo]

So someone who believes in God is no scientist?

"but not your claim to being a scientist, as scientists only believe in that which is proven, and you believed even though it was unproven."

The fact that you use the word 'proven' like this demonstrates that you are no scientist, or perhaps only that you are not a very good one.

adjustment

[Anonymous Coward]

...by which I am not claiming that science itself is a religion, but that some people treat it as such, teach and use it as such. And that these people and their teachings should be kept out of the science classrooms just as any other religion is.

rohan972

Here we go again

[Moggyboy]

When oh when oh when are scientists going to find the gene for irrational belief so we can eliminate it?!? What a wonderful world it will be when this irrelevant, outdated doctrine disappears forever.

Re:Why do you think Russia's such a hot destinatio

[tehcyder]

Why do you think Russia's such a hot destination for Evangelical Christian missionary programs? With all those years of Stalinism keeping religion under its heel, it's ripe for the picking.

It's also got quite a few suddenly-very-rich people with bad consciences.

Re:Sure! Here's your alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you don't understand: the point was that Communism (the future ideal of Communism, anyway) was _itself_ a state religion in Russia.