Slashdot Mirror
12 Florida Schools Pass Anti-Evolution Resolutions
Several sources are reporting that twelve school districts in Florida have passed resolutions against the teaching of evolution. Out of all the arguments, however, one administrator seems to have gotten it right: "Then, the final speaker, Lisa Dizengoff, director of science curriculum at Pembroke Pines Charter School's east campus, angrily reminded the crowd that after all the carping over evolution, no one had gotten around to addressing the state's lackadaisical, last-century approach to science education. 'All I heard was this argument about evolution,' she said, disgusted that so many other problems had been preempted by a single controversy. 'The kids lost out again.''"
there was a rumor going around florida might lose their fark tag.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
The 21st Century... The new Dark Ages, when religion is high and education is low.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
When do we start bombing the religious zealots in this country for oppressing their people?
No sig for you!!
The comment that struck me is one board member stating that they were "Opposed to teaching Evolution as a fact."
I suppose he should also be against teaching gravity or biology or even simple arithmetic...
All the above are based on theories that have been shown to be consistant but none are trully "facts."
When will we see an article talking about teaching alternate theories of Math?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
I think I'm going to have to head down to that next meeting with a clue-by-four and lay down some science on their asses.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
1. Brace self for usual massive troll reaction to this, 2. Go outside, and do something else.
pi = 3. It's in the bible, it's the law. I for one do not welcome our divine overlords.
The kids are getting screwed by America's wang.
I don't either. And I'm not posting anonymously. This is bullshit, and deserves to be treated as such. If you'll pardon the metaphor, to hell with this "theory" bullshit. It's an observable phenomenon. The only 'Theory' part of it is whether or not the currently observable laws of nature also were holding true during the time that life as we can see it came about or not. It's like saying, 'Sure that gravity pulls books down to the ground NOW, but did it still do that 10,000 years ago? Until you can answer that positively then you only have a theory!!'
Speak for yourself.
... seems to be the sum total of evidence against evolution.
http://xkcd.com/54/ is appropriate right now.
I don't have any kids and my tax dollars go to public schools. If I have to help pay for them, then parents with kids in private school have to help pay for them.
If you want to send your kids to private school, that's your right. That doesn't mean that you get to take funds away from public schools.
Technoli
> because neither popular argument (ID/evolution) is proven (although evolution makes FAR more sense, dont you think?)
Where did you get that idea from? Evolution has been proven time after time, from Darwin's finches over selective breeding, resistant strains of diseases all the way to artificial intelligence programs. Evolution is no fact, but it is a good explanations for fact we can see all around us.
Whereas intelligent design does not explain anything, very much like the Homunculus argument.
What makes me so mad about things like this are, these parents seem to be concerned about their kids education when it's convenient. Our education system here is in shambles and this is what they bicker about? How about being concerned about failing schools THEN robble about silly shit. Hypocrites...
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
You forgot to mention "and pay for it themselves."
Technoli
I have studied theology in some depth. I am familiar with apologetics and all the classical defenses put forth to support the integrity of specific, popular, religious beliefs.
For all the philosophical rambling, none of them, absolutely none of them, escape this simple indisputable fact:
All religious teachings are provided to us by humans.
If God Himself appeared next to me and handed me a copy of the Bible, that would be one thing. But instead, a human handed to me. And, in fact, a human wrote every word that is in it. This notion of "divine inspiration" (which is supposed to remove the element of human fallibility from the Bible) was communicated to me by...wait for it....A HUMAN.
I can agree in principle with the presumption that faith in God is well-founded, and faith in human reason (i.e. the theory of evolution) is not so well-founded. However, to put faith in the teachings (or books) of any religion is to put faith in human reason.
There is no denial, only rationalization.
When I was in school we did learn that they where other theories about how life started on earth. We learned that some people believed in spontaneous generation like that maggots came from rotting meat. We learned how these where shown to be incorrect or lacking in any evidence.
I would have no problem with them teaching intelligent design if they just followed the rules of science when teaching it.
Simply that some people think this is how life got started but there is no proof or experiments that prove it out and many of their claims have been disproven or at least had a lot of doubt about them.
Science should be open to different ideas even if they are wrong. They must all be looked at using the scientific method. I doubt many creationist would like the way it was being taught but that is just too bad. If they can get some good science to back them up then let's see it.
All that I have seen was really bad.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
You're right that it's going to end badly. It's only going to take a few pissed off parents and the ACLU will walk in and destroy all of this as completely as was done in Dover. The schools will end up owing millions, the kids will suffer, and the idiots who have fallen liars from the Discovery Institute will largely get off scot-free like they did in Dover.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Schools are funded from the public purse. They should exclude any religious teachings. If you want your kid to go to a religious-based school, go ahead. But, you pay for it yourself AND you should stil fund the public system. Religious indoctrination should be separate from education, just as knowledge is separate from belief. The two can peacefully coexist, once you are intelligent enough to differentiate between the two.
Believe in what ever you wish, but don't expect an education system to put forth any opinion that has no basis in fact. Its bad enough with the one-sided view of history that is currently taught . . .
If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
All that needs to be done at this point is to start collecting quotes from those that are bringing in this policy. They're religious nuts, and they'll constantly reveal that. That's what wiped them out in Dover (well, that and that blowhard Behe who made a fool of himself during the trial). These religious fanatics can't help it, it's the way their brain is designed.
So when it goes to court, the ACLU lawyers can throw down a ton of quotes showing that the justification for this move was religious, the First Amendment rights of the children were violated, and the books are shut. Of course, it'll screw the kids over because all that money wasted by religious fanatics trying to force a public school system into becoming an organ of religious indoctrination.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This isn't about education at all. It is about power. And the worst power mongers are people are these low-level politicians on school boards and local councils who have more direct control over the people immediately around them.
They are no doubt congratulating themselves about bringing 17th century thinking to the 21st century.
Sad. I doubt most people in Florida, or even these schools agree with this result. Hopefully, like in Kansas, it will be overturned.
The "it's only a theory" comment is a pretty classic example of an etymological fallacy; invoking an older or more looser usage of a word in an attempt to undermine a more narrow or professional usage. In this case, they attempt to equate the definition of theory as a "claim" or "guess" with the very narrow and strict definition of the word as it is applied by scientists. It's simply another variant of the older sticker trick that was tried, and every time it comes up, a court sees through the bullshit and lies (it's ironic how deceitful and immoral all these good Christian folks become) and rule that the Creationists/IDers have distinctly religious motives.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I mean, this argument over evolution has religious roots, but I can't help but stare in disbelief at believers who waste their energy over this argument. What difference does it make if every school in the country teaches God created the earth when you look at most religious people and the only way you can tell they have religion is their loud harping on evolution and abortion and hatred of homosexuals, atheists, and people who don't share their faith? There's no compassion or any of the other virtues you occasionally hear touted as being part of religion coming from the people behind these movements. No love of truth. No love of others as they love themselves. Just know it all venom and a desperate need to defend dogmas no matter how silly they sound defending them or what new lows of deception they have to sink to in their defense.
I have to ask those believers, is this what Jesus would do and be about? I'm working my ass off to make sure my kids can go to the finest private non-religious schools available. They can raise their kids in 3rd world ignorance, but I can make sure my kids aren't.
Patriot - A fan of expanding government power and spending while not wanting to pay higher taxes.
Isn't biology something we can study that's in front of our faces? We can actually watch plants growing, babies forming in a womb, organs working, cells replicating etc...
Maybe I'm living under a rock here, but I've never really seen evolution demonstrated.
i don't know how long it's been since you've been in biology, but yes, you are sort of out of it. just like gravity, evolution is just a name we give to the system of observable facts that demonstrate how there are more than one kind of living thing. it can be demonstrated to be true, again and again, just like gravity. it is NOT a hypothesis, which is the word that most people mean when they say theory.
for the most part, i think that people simply do not know what the tenets of evolution are. in most basic terms, the theory of evolution states that over time, the genetic composition of a species as a whole will shift due to the environmental pressures placed on that species.
evolution goes on to explain the ways in which a species can change, be it through selective breeding (girl dogs think short tailed boy dogs are ugly... short tail dogs get less nookie...next generation contains fewer short tailed dogs), selective predation (white bunnies are easier to see in the woods than brown bunnies... white bunnies get eaten more...next generation there are less white bunnies), environmental adaptations (goats with larger lungs can get to good food way up on the mountain...big-lung goats eat better... next generation there are more big-lung goats).
it isn't magic. it's very simple math. so simple that when it is explained, it is so self-evident that the most fundamental crazy can't honestly refute it, in my experience. but we have this growing population of people who are so intolerant to changing their minds that they refuse to learn. anything. and they refuse to risk allowing their children to learn. and they vote. WTF.
Actually, you have seen evolution in action. You've seen evidence of it every time you hear a news story about bacteria developing resistance to new antibiotics, every time you hear about somebody who has cancer. You can go to a museum and see how living things have changed over time, or notice the fact that whales have arm bone structure that's not all that different from land-dwelling mammals.
In short, there is no question--none whatsoever--that evolution takes place. The modern synthesis of evolutionary theory says that it happens because mutations provide a source of variation which natural forces can select for or against. This is observable as well: if you consider the gene for sickle cell anemia (which provides protection against malaria), it tends to be much more common in regions of the world that are rife with malaria, because those are the places where that gene can convey some benefit. This is pretty much as close as you get to bulletproof science. Now, admittedly, there are some areas of the theory which aren't as certain as others, but on the whole, you're talking about a very damn solid theory that's supported by interlocking scientific evidence from dozens of disciplines. Some of the best minds in science have been poking and prodding at this theory for over 150 years and it's still going strong--hell, Darwin's theory predicted some things that we've only recently found with molecular biology. How much better does a theory get?
Personally, I'd be happy to let the religious folks gather round their altars and sing Hosannahs to their invisbile sky daddy, but unfortunately, that's not enough for them. They need to inflict their beliefs, whether on abortion, or stem cell research, or contraception use, or whatever, on all of us. Why should I trust somebody who closes their eyes to basic scientific fact to make decisions rooted in science that might affect me?
The world will be a better place when we grow up enough, as a species, to put away childish things like religion.
First of all, your arguing against inference. Have you ever seen an electron? Did you ever see your great-great-great-great-grandparents? Did you ever meet anybody that spoke Proto-Indo-European? No, but you can infer these things from the evidence.
As to evolution, of course you can observe it. We have nylon-digesting bacteria now when nylon didn't even exist before the 1930s. I was just reading about pupfish in Death Valley who have gone through a radical process of speciation since the valley dried up after 20,000 years ago.
If you wish to dip into some sort of solipsism or epistemological nihilism, be my guest, but what you're really doing is denying that any knowledge can be gathered that is reliable. You might as well deny that yesterday ever happened, and that the universe began at midnight, and everything is just fake memories. Just remember, if you want to deny or question evolution "because I've never seen it", then you have to be fair and basically call into question *all* knowledge, because everything is susceptible to such an argument.
If you actually want to learn something about evolution, then I recommend going to http://talkorigins.org/ where there are dozens of articles dealing with all manner of evolutionary problems and explanations, with full citations so you can go to a library and check for yourself.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Of course we have seen it. Its all around us. Its in the fossil record. By your logic, nobody has actually seen galaxies evolve because they are looking into the past via the fossil record of the universe - radiation (light, xrays, etc.)
Evolution can be easily traced back to the earliest creatures capable of leaving imprints of themselves behind. The entire process of developing lungs, limbs, spines, etc. etc. is all right there. Each step of the way. It is not a mystery. Just because it doesn't happen in a timespan and a place you personally can witness doesn't make it not so. The sun didn't form before your eyes did it? Did the mountains spring up so you could witness? Is geology a supposition? An educated guess?
You can demonstrate evolution in the lab with bacteria. You can demonstrate complex hydrocarbons doing all sorts of magical stuff in the lab (how life came to be in the first place.)
Tracing the biology of animals of this planet is a well known, well documented science. It is FACT, because the facts are right there in front of the entire worlds eyes, should they choose to look. Fish moving onto land, developing lungs, etc.
We have broken down the DNA code very well at this point, and can trace our origins that way as well. We can see where we differ and what we share with trees, worms, bacteria, dogs and elephants. Natural selection (the mechanism behind evolution) is everywhere as well. Look at dog and cat breeds. Cattle. Plants. Insects. You name it, you can change the creature itself by breeding.
Evolution is science. It is what the facts tell us. This is not a philosophical debate. There are no two sides. It is not a guess. It is about stupidity and blind faith. You can't reject evolution any more than you can reject combustion, or gravity. If people DO reject it, they are simply being ignorant and stupid. Plain and simple.
Basing "science" on something written thousands of years ago by people who were so far from us in their knowledge of the world is ridiculous. It is absurd. Why not simply observe the world? Observe what is right in front of our faces, and learn from it.
Evolution isn't theoretical science. It is the underpinning of all of modern biology. That's why it's important.
Maybe now that they've had some success on this front, they can pursue suppressing the "round-earth theory" in Earth Science, and Geography classes.
"Many biologists"? I'd say the overwhelming majority do. Even ID proponent Michael Behe doesn't deny evolution and common descent, he just wants to find some way to emperically insert God into the equation.
Pretty much every biologist I've ever read or talked to agrees with this maxim:
"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" - Theodosius Dobzhansky
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Can Floridian school boards really claim to not understand why 40% of their 8th grade students lack even just a "basic" understanding of science? Or why they can't retain/get enough qualified science teachers?
They know science education is important, they know that without it, the won't be competitive in the global economy. With evolution framing all of our knowledge of biology, do you really expect these kids to be taken seriously when they enter the job market? How the hell are they going to get through an evolutionary biology class in college if they are taught to believe the mumbo jumbo ID BS?
On a related topic, does anyone have any thoughts on how the US in general can start to retain more of the science talent that we have? Any thoughts from those of you in other countries as to how you retain teachers?
As much as I would like to say the problem is just located on America's Wang, its not, we have a science education brain drain all over this country. There isn't nearly enough emphasis on science/engineering throughout our school system, and adding to the problem, we wont give work visas to the foreign students who get graduate degrees here.
We know the whole US cant just switch to a service economy with everyone ironing each others shirts for money, we have to drive/design new tech to maintain our leadership.
How can we reverse this trend?
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
If you actually want to learn something about evolution, then I recommend going to http://talkorigins.org/ where there are dozens of articles dealing with all manner of evolutionary problems and explanations, with full citations so you can go to a library and check for yourself.
:)
You might also like to see what they think in the mirror universe of "creation science". Put on your false beard and pretend to be your fundamentalist twin as you visit the creationist response to talkorigins. Then read your Bible and check for yourself!
>north
You're an immobile computer, remember?
While I agree with you, I have to point out that scientists themselves are often guilty of this. By definition, physics shouldn't have "String Theory", but the "String Hypothesis".
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
Grammar Nazi
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
And you'll find a good many physicists who agree with you. I, for one, do not think String Theory qualifies as a theory, and find calling it that rather abusive of the term.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The comment that struck me is one board member stating that they were "Opposed to teaching Evolution as a fact."
....but I bet, never the less that he BELIEVES in it as a fact. Lawrence Lessig (of Physics of Star Trek fame) gave an excellent talk at a Canadian physics conference I was at last year where he explained that scientists should not take too much to heart all these medieval occurances since deap down people really did believe in evolution.
His example was the bird flu scare. Absolutely nobody went around say: "don't worry it cannot possible evolve into something deadly to us, it was designed for birds and will stay that way". So when push comes to shove these people really do believe in science and evolution. So in the end they are really nothing more than hypocrits which, since most of them are politicians, we already knew anyway.
Evolution has been accepted by the Catholic church for decades. It's the Evangelical Protestants who are raising a stink.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
I don't want my tax dollars going to fund some fundamentalists' brain-washing clinic / madrassa. Instead of splitting the nation into private enclaves, we ought to improve the public education system to the point where there isn't any need for an alternative.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
If the members of boards of education were, in fact, educated people themselves much of this nonsense would be avoided! Until then I may be a good thing that they don't try to teach anything important so as not to wind up vulgarizing and trivializing it. Evolution as a sound-bite about Darwin!
In my daughter's so-called 'Geometry' class in high school, planar forms were 'studied'. Formulas were memorized. The concepts of doing proofs and logical deduction or formal systems were not mentioned. When I brought this up to the teacher ( a sports coach) he didn't know what I was talking about.
Education as vocational school doesn't need this stuff, and besides isn't thinking a little suspect in America anyway these days?
What do you mean by "no definitive proof". We share almost entirely the same genome. Hell, we even share many of the same endogenous retroviral insertions as our closest relatives; the great apes, at the same bloody loci in the genome. If you have some alternate explanation besides common descent, then I'd love to hear it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You know what one of these days this dumb assed world is going to wake up to the fact that religion is just a tool used by the MINORITY to CONTROL the Majority then and only then will we start to see a world that has come of age until then it is still a teenage grotto and i mean ALL Religions whatever name you give your perticular version of a con job . Some of us can see straight thru all the BULLCRAP there never has been never will be and never can be a god by any name you care to attach to it it IS just an excuse for a lack of Metal i believe it is called in America i call it lack of Bollocks guts balls mental stability Have fun
Karma
Well, it shouldn't have a "String Theory", but that doesn't mean it can't have "String Theory"; string theory seems to me to be a field of "theory" in the unenumerable sense used in mathematics (e.g., "knot theory"), that takes as its underlying basis the conjectures of a particular fundamental model of physics (I'm not sure its even a "hypothesis" in the conjecture->hypothesis->theory heirarchy, since I'm not sure that clear tests for falsification have yet been proposed—which would make it a viable hypothesis—much less carried out, repeatably, without falsifying it—which would make it a viable theory.)
I've never understood why Christianity is so dogmatic about it.
Perhaps I can help clear that up.
The Catholic church existed before the Bible existed. The Catholic church assembled the Bible to use as a cannon of study and teaching. They did not say "this single book was given to us by God, and is therefore correct, and therefore we must try to build our church and beliefs around its contents." The structure of authority went the other way...the leaders of the church (the Pope and his underlings) had received all of God's teachings directly, through oral tradition and through the direct (miraculous) transmission of the Holy Spirit. They were the ultimate authority on what was True, and the Bible was just one collection of sacred writings which they were authorizing for spiritual use.
So the authoritive structure of truth went from God, to Jesus, to the Apostles, to the Church, THEN to the Bible.
Inasmuch as the Bible might be lacking in any detail, or stating anything in a confusing way, the Church was there to clarify things for you.
The doctrine of the Trinity, then, does not need to be Biblical in order for it to be a proper Catholic belief. It merely needs to be endorsed by the Church.
Martin Luther stood that on its head when he founded his own version of the church (the Protestants) and based it on his own interpretation of the Bible and of the teachings of the church. Over time, other people followed his example, creating the numerous sects of Christianity that we see today. These sects do not consider themselves Catholics, and as such are "cut off" from the historical roots of their teachings. They have cooked up this notion that their teachings are entirely founded in the Bible, when in fact many of them are just leftovers from Catholicism, or new additions made by their various sect-founders along the way.
So that's why they get so dogmatic about it. They are taught that:
1) The Bible is the foundation of our beliefs.
2) The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is one of our beliefs.
And they therefore infer that the doctrine of the Trinity must be Biblical. Some of the more studious ones have found a few vague and poetic verses in various parts of the Bible and synthesized them (with a little rationalizing glue) to produce what they claim is the scriptural foundation of that belief. However, anyone who reads them without already knowing about the doctrine of the Trinity will very likely not conclude that the Bible teaches that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one.
So there you have it.
More of us should read Voltaire's writings. He wrote a great deal about fanaticism and religion (he was not an atheist). Some quotes:
One of my favorites:
From Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary:
Believing that the Earth is 10000 years old in the face of hard scientific evidence is like taking dreams for reality.
Methinks in these days of growing fanaticism, both religious and ideological, we would do well to learn from what Voltaire wrote.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
I've always found it funny how creationists and their supporters argue against the teaching of evolution on the basis that, "It's only a theory." What they seem to forget (or were never taught) is that everything in science is, at most, a theory. Nothing is certain, nothing is absolute. Nothing can be deemed "irrefutable" as such a statement implies one can tell the future. It is always possible that new data will someday come to light and contradict that which we hold to be a "universal truth."
:)
Of course, I suppose if the creationists did understand this concept they would attempt to use it against the scientific community. If nothing is absolutely certain, how then do you know anything, right?
*looks around at all of the gadgets, cars, buildings, medical technology, etc.*
Well, we seem to be applying science quite well despite the fact.
Older humans work very hard on teaching very young humans about religion, to make sure they believe in it when they grow older and continue the cycle.
I think that's dead wrong.
It's actually pretty tough for our child sometimes, who we brought up to be caring and considerate of the feelings of others without the fear of a trip to hell if she isn't, when her friends invite her to go to Church with them. She goes along sometimes but afterwards, if there's a study group, she has to excuse herself because she doesn't know what to say or do. What to think even. She tells us that she pretends to pray so they other kids don't think she's a freak, but she really has no clue who she's meant to be praying to.
At least she won't go to hell for doing so, because there is no such thing of course.
Don't misunderstand me: I very much want to inflict my beliefs on people who I think are wrong, when the beliefs they currently hold have the potential to drive the world in a direction I see as undesirable. When I see religious nuts closing their eyes to basic science (to our detriment as a society and as a rational species) then hell yes, I want to convert them to my side. Every religion I know urges its followers to go convert nonbelievers, so I'm just trying to do my part for the rationals.
And yes, religion is very, very silly. It amuses me to tears that some people read ancient myths and dismiss them as the storytelling of ignorant primitives, and then go to church to listen to a 2000 year old book about God making the world out of mud and telling us not to eat shellfish or worship cows.
First of all, evolution has no more to say on the subject of God's existence than climatology or hydrology. It's a scientific theory. It is a-theistic (not atheistic, you'll note). You won't find any evolutionary papers that talk about the existence of God any more than you'll find any chemistry papers that do.
Second of all, the evidence shows that we and monkeys share a common ancestor. The fossil record shows this pretty well, but the molecular record is even more clear. You may not like that (I have no idea why), but that's where it sits. We and monkeys are related. We and seasquirts are related. We and bacteria are related. The distances may be greater, but we all share a common ancestor.
And this has nothing to do with God either.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Well said. You have my applause.
Really, this sort of behavior boils down to tribalism. People have a need to identify themselves as part of a group and what better way to do that then to contrast yourselves with those who are outside of your group. This is why some people glom onto fanatacisim for professional sports teams or fall victim to fashion trends. It's all about establishing your group identity. The Japanese have a notably complex system of in-groups and out-groups and expected behaviors when interacting with people in and out of your many groups.
The foaming at the mouth evangelicals love to portray themselves as under perilous attack by secular heathens despite the fact that North America has an overwhelmingly Christian culture and it isn't going away anytime soon. This is all part of the rhetoric established from the time that Christians really were a minority group who had to withstand the oppression of other dominant groups. Just once, I whish these fools could put themselves in the shoes of a Hindu or Buddhist immigrant to realize what it truly feels like to be a little fish in a bowl of sharks.
Of course this is one of the many problems with modern Christianity: it is permeated with an air of anti-intellectualism. You shouldn't try to question the "truth" as given to you by people serving as intermediaries for God (or direct from the KJV Bible for the literalists). To do so would be to admit that you don't have enough faith and without faith you're going to hell so just shut up and believe everything we tell you to believe in. We have things like idiot Protestants claiming that Roman Catholics aren't real Christians. (WTF?) People like Pat Robertson are lionized by millions and yet he openly expresses hatred for non-Christians. Somehow these people can claim to be followers of Jesus and yet they conveniently fail to realize the core meaning his teachings.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
You'll know someone is a Christian by his or her compassion, humility, and love. Someone who hates people because of their actions probably doesn't know Jesus very well.
Although Darwinism is just a theory...
Darwinism (the theory of evolution by natural selection) is a theory the same way that gravity is a theory. (Believe it or not, there are things about gravity we don't understand.) That is, it has been proven so often, and in so many ways, it's no longer questioned, and many medical advances have been made by the assumption of its correctness.
This whole, "Darwinism is just a theory," is part of the Discovery Institute's "teach to the controversy" approach. They muddle the science of evolution to the point where even well-established words like "theory" are up for debate. ("It all depends on what the definition of 'is' is.")
In science, a theory is an hypothesis that has withstood experimental evidence. In science, an experiment is a prediction that is negatable. That is, it's a prediction that can be proven wrong. The theory of evolution by natural selection has made many predictions, and in every case where the results of the predictions are known, the predictions have been positive. So, Darwinism is an hypothesis that has withstood testing. It is a theory.
The distinction between a theory and an hypothesis is important. Scientists assume a theory is correct, and base *other* hypothesis on the correctness of the theory. This is important, as many accepted theories have crumbled in the face of the results of experiments for other hypothesis. This is what happened with Newtonian physics-- although not incorrect, Newton's laws were proven to be specific applications of quantum physics and relativity within a certain domain (moderately sized objects traveling at relatively slow speeds in relation to the observer).
Until there is another field of scientific study to modify or usurp how we view evolutionary biology, Darwinism isn't just "another theory." It is *the* theory that underpins our entire understanding of genetics, physiology, ecology, and sociology (as well as many other *ologies.)
Now, as to the rest of your (non-sequitur) post: damned straight. That's one of the flaws (and greatest strengths) of democracy. The generally-accepted stupidities of our nation (or county or state) get magnified a hundred times and become ensconced in stupid policy. And that's why it's up to us to change understanding for the better, and policy to reflect our better understanding.
And we start by checking our own repetition of the generally-accepted falsehoods, like "Evolution is just a theory," as if it were on a par with Jim-boy's theory of the vast government UFO/bigfoot conspiracy.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Give me a break! How many hours does the evolution theory take in the whole U.S. middle/high school science program? It's probably much less than 1% of it.
What about the rest of it?
Nobody even mentions the sorry state of the science education in school in general, besides the evolution topic. I find it almost embarrassing that almost the only things that most of the high school graduates remember from the science classes is dissecting a frog.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Latitude correlates to IQ!
The lower you go, the lower it gets.
[End Of Line]
Anyone can... state how stupid I am for not following the scientific wave of the support of evolution.
You're not stupid for not following the scientific wave. You're stupid because your reasons for rejecting evolution are ignorant and wrongheaded, and you show no interest in correcting those reasons.
Evolution is a theory and has not been proven, just as the belief of God is not proven.
Unlike God, evolution has a vast amount of evidence from a vast number of sources to support the theory. To the extent that anything can be considered "proven" in science, evolution is. In scientific terms the basic theory is as firmly supported as the theory that the earth orbits the sun.
If I'm wrong and their is no heaven and their is no hell. Then so what.
What if you're wrong, not about God's existence, but how he wants to be worshiped? What if your failure to be a good Mormon is what damns you to Hell?
That's the problem with Pascal's Wager, as you've expressed it: It takes no account of believing in the wrong God.
But what if your wrong?
If I'm wrong, and a plausible scientific theory successfully challenges evolution, then it will make no difference to my day to day life, or to my metaphysical view of the universe. My reasons for being a moral, happy person have nothing to do with either God or evolution.
I don't believe that we, just by chance, came into existence.
Evolution doesn't say that we came into existence "just by chance". See my first statement on why you're stupid.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
You when will you literalists ever learn?
God only used an integer because support for floating point operations was severely limited in the CPUs of the time.
If you actually read the http://www.taylor.k12.fl.us/shared.content/board.meetings/minutes/11-20-07.pdf>meeting minutesyou would see that they are actually EXPANDING on the theory of evolution into the real of cosmology and quantum physics.
"[we] are requesting that the State Board of Education direct the Florida Department of
Education to revise/edit the new Sunshine State Standards for Science so that evolution is
presented as one of several theories as to how the universe was formed."
I have a graduate degree in physics, but I wasn't aware that the universe was formed by evolution. Although I have to admit that the thought of mating galaxies has a certain appeal.
---------------------
People who don't understand sarcasm are bound to be an irresistible target for it.
Now if the state is trying to force these people to accept evolution as an explanation of the origin of the universe, I'd be miffed about it as well. On the other hand, if they came up with this bit all by themselves, I think that they really do require someone to explain what evolution really is. I'd feel sorry for the good people of this county, if they hadn't been the ones electing the board in the first place.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
Evolution, like all sciences, relies on naturalistic explanations. If it didn't, it wouldn't be science. And just because we don't know some part of a theory does not mean the theory is not useful or does not explain things.
And abiogenesis is a rather active area of research, which, like evolution, quantum mechanics, geology, climatology and every other science you care to name, does not mention God either.
As to multicellular organisms, there are a rather large number of colonial single-celled organisms which give us a good picture of how multicellular organisms evolved. That isn't even really a problem for biology, and hasn't been for decades. The real open question is how some prokaryote lineage evolved into eukaryotes. You see, you don't even know where the problems in evolutionary biology lie, because you're just aping some bullshit you've read on Creationists sites or from Creationist literature.
Oh, and get rid of the word "proof". Proof is for alcohol and mathematics. Science doesn't "prove" things in the sense that you think it does.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Employers who expect their employees to be conversant with modern science and the scientific method should send letters to these school districts decalring they won't hire anyone who is a product of their schools.
Yes, that's unfair to some students, but these willful Luddites need to be taught a lesson.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
SPREAD THE WORD
Evolution is a scientific fact, and every organization whose research depends on it should explain why.
Three cheers for the US National Academy of Sciences for publishing an updated version of its booklet Science, Evolution, and Creationism (see http://www.nap.edu/sec). The document succinctly summarizes what is and isn't science, provides an overview of evidence for evolution by natural selection, and highlights how, time and again, leading religious figures have upheld evolution as consistent with their view of the world.
For a more specific and also entertaining account of evolutionary knowledge, see palaeontologist Kevin Padian's evidence given at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (see http://tinyurl.com/2nlgar). Padian destroys the false assertions by creationists that there are critical gaps in the fossil record. He illustrates the fossil-rich paths from fish to land-based tetrapod, from crocodile to dinosaur to feathered dinosaur to bird, from terrestrial quadruped to the whale, and more besides. Creationism is strong in the United States and, according to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, worryingly on the rise in Europe (see http://tinyurl.com/2knrqy). But die-hard creationists aren't a sensible target for raising awareness. What matters are those citizens who aren't sure about evolution -- as much as 55% of the US population according to some surveys.
As the National Academy of Sciences and Padian have shown, it is possible to summarize the reasons why evolution is in effect as much a scientific fact as the existence of atoms or the orbiting of Earth round the Sun, even though there are plenty of refinements to be explored. Yet some actual and potential heads of state refuse to recognize this fact as such. And creationists have a tendency to play on the uncertainties displayed by some citizens. Evolution is of profound importance to modern biology and medicine. Accordingly, anyone who has the ability to explain the evidence behind this fact to their students, their friends and relatives should be given the ammunition to do so. Between now and the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth on 12 February 2009, every science academy and society with a stake in the credibility of evolution should summarize evidence for it on their website and take every opportunity to promote it.
I don't believe that we, just by chance, came into existence.
Anyone who has any understanding of evolution knows that "just by chance" is an extremely poor description of evolution. Randomness plays a very, very small role in the evolutionary descent of organisms.
I am a Christian, and like many others, it doesn't matter what you say to me
Can I quote you on that?
That simple fact indicates why your philosophy fails: it is, like all faith, completely resistant to evidence. It doesn't matter what you are shown, explained, or demonstrated: you will perist in a pre-determined pattern of belief. When you decide a belief before hearing arguments, it is philosophically equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and going "wah wah wah I can't hear you". Most religious people won't admit it as you just have.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
And why is that funny? Have you? Living organisms don't evolve. Populations do. Evolution is "a change in the statistical distribution of alleles in a population over time". This happens continuously, and is observed about as often as gravity.
I sometimes wonder if any schoolsare teaching evolution in the first place.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
from http://www.answers.com/religion&r=67 Religion: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
Atheism from http://www.answers.com/atheism&r=67 Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. Even Evolution takes faith. Again, you obviously don't know the definition of science and faith. from http://www.answers.com/faith&r=67 Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
From Wikipedia on scientific method: It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning
I can't make it any clearer, sorry
Think about if instead of "religion," you inserted "American history" or "government" or "biology" into your post. As for "things that are real," religions are real. What they believe in may or may not be real, but the religions themselves are as real as capitalism or democracy or feudalism, and have a huge impact on our modern day-to-day world. Learning ABOUT religions is NOT the same thing as being indoctrinated INTO a religion.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
I posted this in response to some of the comments on the linked blog:
To Rob Poole and biblethumper, excellent responses.
Also, I would like to add for clarity that "theory" in the scientific context (or any other) does not mean a blind guess, or even an educated guess...
A theory, contrary to its colloquial usage, is defined by Webster's as "The analysis of a set of FACTS in their relation to one another."
Thus, that evolution occurs is a fact. HOW it occurs is what The Theory of Evolution proposes to explain. It explains it so well that it has been used to predict much of the cause-effect relationships that have resulted in most of the medical care you receive today. Were it not for evolutionary biology, very little of today's medical expertise would exist. You cannot peruse any corner of medicine and/or science without running invariably into evolutionary biology, paleobiology, genetics, heredity and all the myriad life sciences that were, of all things, spawned unknowingly by the discovery of a monk (the aforementioned Mendel).
The problem with imagining that Creationism is anything remotely resembling a theory is that it consists of no facts. When questioned as to the facts that support it, a mishmash of suppositions are presented, but no evidence. When asked what Creationism proposes, no cogent explanation is provided. In short, Creationism/Intelligent Design fell apart upon very basic scrutiny in Kitzmiller et. al. v Dover Board of Education, during a cross-examination of ID's biggest "expert", Michael Behe, a molecular biologist from Lehigh University... The court testimony of Behe exposed that Creationism/Intelligent Design consists of no direct evidence, proposes nothing, disproves nothing, and proves nothing.
It should be noted, however, that contrary to Rob Poole's post that the Theory of Evolution doesn't have "just as much" evidence as Newtonian and Einsteinian Theories of Gravity. The Theory of Evolution, in fact, has many times the evidence behind it. Over 150 years of findings published in thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed scientific articles.
It is useful to note that Mendel, who did not understand yet the mechanism of heredity but observed its occurrence, was vindicated three centuries later by James Watson and F.H.C. Crick's discovery of the double-helical structure of DNA, the mechanism of heredity (not unlike how Arno Penzias and Bob Wilson discovered in 1960 the Cosmic Microwave Background that Dirac predicted some 40 years earlier). It is also useful to note that modern genetic research on homeobox genes, the "master control switches" of huge sets of genes, are vindicating key aspects of Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge's Punctuated Equilibrium -- namely the abrupt and drastic periods of divergence interrupting long periods of data-backed, not gap-backed, stasis.
How does the Bible explain the interchangeablity of the Pax-6 homolog between Drosophila melanogaster and Homo sapiens sapiens? Why did the Bible not predict the structure of DNA? If two humans can do it, surely god could have proffered an explanation of his own invention.
There has not been in the history of modern science (circa the advent of chemistry and physics) a more demonstrable theory with more evidence to support it. If you refute evolution, you might as well walk off a cliff and hope for the best.
I agree with those who say that faith and science are not entirely incompatible. But whereas science does not attempt to do anything but find facts, religiion does not do anything but pursue meaning... and poorly at that. So in a way they ARE incompatible. But where science is the best system for testing hypotheses and deriving what is fact, as the scientific process is more successful than any system before it for doing so, religion is no better than a great philosophical treatise or a poignant fiction in giving human beings a sense of self-worth and meaning to find their place. The difference is that, Siskel and Ebert's cutthroat debates aside, usually
Evolution is what it is because nothing else can explain observation. It flows from the facts. It is not a hypothesis. It is a theory. Which means it is testable with experiment, and fits all observed facts. Nothing has ever been shown to prove otherwise. Ergo, it is fact.
How so? Is all fact open for debate? This subject is closed. It is not dogma. Is relativity dogma? Are plate tectonics dogma? What did I say that was stupid and dogmatic? Because I don't question every fact?
The reasons I have given ARE scientific, because the reasons were listed as the testable, provable real things that make up evolution. Observable natural selection. The fossil record. Speciation. The DNA record. etc. etc.
Just because I say that people are stupid if they disagree with fact, does that make me dogmatic? Not at all. If you disagree with me on the cellular structure of a potato, just because, well, you are being stupid. I can show you in a microscope the provable fact of that structure. Same goes for something like evolution.
Certainly, things like quantum gravity are open ended discussions, because we have no theory to fit all facets of observation in that realm. Something like evolution is simply not debatable, unless new, before now unknown facts come to light that do not fit observation and experiment. Since these things have yet to surface, I will call anybody who rejects evolution an idiot, because they are. For whatever reason, because there is NO valid reason. Plain and simple.
You are totally confusing science fact, with belief and religious dogma. I do not believe anything about evolution or science. Belief has nothing to do with it. I do not have faith in science. I do not accept it because I feel I must to support some other agenda. I accept it because it is what reality is, it is what is testable and observable. At the very least it is the quest to understand what is testable and observable.
I love the way those guys can watch CSI and have no problem agreeing that a 99.9% DNA match "proves" the suspect is the real father and then turn around and claim that a 95% DNA match between a human and a chimpanzee is just Satan's plot to deceive you into believing in evolution.
Whether or not he meant it this way, I'd argue the "better place" argument should be taken as "the world will be a better place when the bulk populace will not try to base decisions on religion when a well-reasoned and demonstrated scientific theory serves the same purpose, or does not find this to be incompatible with their religion and thus try to exclude science from the public sphere". Because, honestly, that's what some of these nutjobs are trying to do.
To quote a friend of mine: "debate about evolution? man.. did we just go back 150 years?"
Blog
Religious labels being applied to groups that do obnoxious things is why so many people think religion is bad.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Aside from (poorly) attempting to put words in atheist's mouths, your conception of the "Big Bang" is obviously inadequate and almost certainly antiquated. You probably don't know about the theoretical or observational underpinnings of decoupling times, background temperatures (yes, more than one), inflation, total energy content, matter distributions, quantum mechanics ... the list goes on.
You also probably do not know how any of those apply to either cosmology, the greater field of astronomy, or your everyday life.
Finally, when you "zoom in" enough to get to our solar system, you quite evidently do not know about the early solar system, or how simple things like density gradients and angular momentum give you the right concentrations of materials at the right distances.
You also are using an outdated model by which early organic molecules and polymers may have been formed. There are many potential models right now, and we are currently refining our data on early Earth before we start to claim definitive superiority for any number of models. What we have observed in the laboratory, however, is that certain reducing atmospheres with electrical discharges can produce amino acids and other organics. It so happens this was probably rather unlike early Earth's atmosphere, but we admitted that a while ago. Didn't you get the memo? Or were you too busy ignoring what scientists said?
And what is life anyway? You certainly have never given a good definition of it. Probably too busy blindly claiming your 2000 year old book was better than the 3000 year old stories of other cultures. And of course, much better than current-day science.
Your argument, as many others that are based around the claim that scientists live with a "religion of chance" seems to rely on the fact that its debaters have no concept of probability or of how mind-bogglingly big the universe is, or how long 14.7 GYr really is. But you have no problem in believing an invisible perfect being existed before the universe, was uncreated, more complex than the universe, created the universe, and in this one tiny tiny tiny tiny pocket in this completely average star 2/3 out of a more-massive-than-average galaxy a little bit off a main arm on a relativley small planet either imperfectly created human beings, who happen to be the three-dimensional representation of this mystical thing, or, directed some special little fatty chemicals and sugar chains over 3.6 GYrs to get to these amazingly imperfect beings.
Oh man, and I'm not even touching the morality argument.
Blog
Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Hey, *Americans* may come from apes, the rest of the world evolved from hominids ;)
(yes, yes I know... It's just a joke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominid )
Some people are religious Christians, some people are religious drunks, and, if you don't believe that science can be a religion, you have not tried to discuss facts with someone who has a pet theory. Atheism may be a religion for some people: it depends on whether they are atheists because they don't see the need for anything else or because they are against religion. Many people, perhaps most, are religious about the core things in their life because they accept them on faith and believe them dogmatically, whatever their philosophical underpinnings.
Science does require faith for the same reason that accepting the Bible as describing spiritual events requires faith: people do not, for the most part, directly experience the things they read about or are told. Sure, in theory, you could reproduce the Michelson-Morley experiment, but have you? Did you witness the Gettysburg address? Or do you just accept that someone has? Even if you are very skeptical, you cannot ever verify ever bit of scientific knowledge you depend on. People depend on a structure of reasoning and a framework to put those bits of knowledge into so that they *could* be tested, but practically, we trust each other (most of the time). Yes, they *are* different, but there are fundaments that are the same, and, even with religion, one should not blindly trust everything one is handed. That is why it is important to study and explore, to figure out what has meaning to you.
I am not saying that scientific reasoning and religious reasoning are the same. They are not. But in the end, meaning is where it is at; the rest fills time.
There are only three possibilities.
1. All species that exist today have always existed. This would only be compatible with a steady-state cosmology.
2. Complex species appeared suddenly (with no predecessors). Observe as long as you wish, you will never see this happen.
3. Single-celled species appeared at some point in the past, and complex species evolved from those.
Guess which option I'd put my money on.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Oh - wait - religion wants us to be all meek and follow the leader and his disciples.
There is only one religion that always works and that is Murphy's Law. But there are some who think's Murphy was an optimist. - In short "Shit happens".
"Religion is only a crutch"
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
There you go again. Atheism is not a belief system. I am very serious about logic and scientific honesty and am very serious about evangelizing atheism and making religions go away. That means while I cannot absolutely prove my position, I can defend it fairly well. That said, I get fervor only when someone doesn't understand what I'm saying or accept that we can use logic in reasoning even about religion.
Personally, I think it's just as false to believe that it's impossible for a god-like intelligence to exist as there is to believe that one definitely exists without proof.You're right of course. However, some people are claiming that a god-like intelligence had something to do with creation, and might even be meddling with the world's affairs now! Such a god MUST leave behind evidence. If he does something that has a significant effect, that effect must be measurable. Because science is simply careful looking at the evidence and science does not see such an effect, it's outrageous to claim such effects still exist.
What if god created us and then disappeared? ID, you know. Well, if I designed humans, I'd make brains understand symmetry. It would be very easy to apply what I've learned about moving my right hand to my left one. A really simple mirroring. In reality, my left hand is almost useless compared to the right one. Clearly I wasn't designed by intelligence.
If there is a god who didn't create the world and doesn't have any other effect either.. Well, gee, what a god, you know. He might exist, but so what? That's not a useful hypothesis.
"Our attitude" toward science depends on who the "our" is, and where you look.
While there are a significant number of people in the USA who honestly believe in Bible-based fundamentalism (in various ways personal to themselves), many are pandered to by corrupt portions of the ulta-moneyed class in order to maintain their power.
Put it another way, the Bush/Cheney crowd don't honestly care about evolution, stem-cell issues, anti-gay histeria, etc., but if by putting up a good face to these issues they can get votes from a base that helps elect them to allow them to cut taxes to the ultra-wealthy, deregulate just about anything where a big buck can be made, eliminate the inheritance tax, give our social-security to Wall Street to manage, get a pointless war going to do god-knows-what in the second-biggest oil producing area on the planet and provide unsupervised billions of $ in free money or no-bid contracts to buddies, squash education and heath care spending, (etc.), they will gladly pay that price. And we see that they do.
All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..