Tennessee Passes Bill That Allows "Teaching the Controversy" of Evolution

Layzej writes "The Tennessee Senate has passed a bill that allows teachers to 'teach the controversy' on evolution, global warming and other scientific subjects. Critics have called it a 'monkey bill' that promotes creationism in classrooms. In a statement sent to legislators, eight members of the National Academy of Science said that, in practice, the bill will likely lead to 'scientifically unwarranted criticisms of evolution.' and that 'By undermining the teaching of evolution in Tennessee's public schools, HB368 and SB893 would miseducate students, harm the state's national reputation, and weaken its efforts to compete in a science-driven global economy.'"

Comments

There's Your Problem Right There

[eldavojohn]

The Senate approved a bill Monday evening that deals with teaching of evolution and other scientific theories ...

Well, there's your problem, right there. The overall concept of evolution is no longer a theory. Surely even the staunchest of Creationists must acknowledge the so called "short-term" evolution that gives us the ability to manipulate plants or breed wolves into dogs.

Yes, as with most fields, a long time ago there were sets of theories. Like prior to Watson and Crick, back when you had Darwinian Evolution, Larmarckian Evolution, etc. Not anymore though. You might have theories about very specific things in the field that might be impossible to prove -- like, say, what the Last Eukaryotic Common Ancestor (LECA) looked like -- but Evolution is no longer a theory. The field moves forward while Tennessee makes themselves look like idiots from some forgotten era.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[binarylarry]

This isn't about the facts.

I mean the creationist counter argument is that it contradicts a bunch of fairy tales written thousands of years ago by sand people.

You aren't going to be able to get the idea of evolution through that brainwashed blank stare they throw up when you start talking about science.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[jhoegl]

On the contrary, science has always touted the fact that everything it discovers as theory.
This allows people to attempt to disprove it until accepted.
So, things that we take as fact "sun is center of our galaxy", "earth is round", is now a proven theory. But in essence, still a theory.
It is one thing I have admired about the scientific community, always allowing scrutiny of the ideas and findings.
This is why I think the summaries counter arguments against the bill are the wrong way to go about it. I would challenge people to find proof against the theory.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[SirGeek]

The Senate approved a bill Monday evening that deals with teaching of evolution and other scientific theories ...

Well, there's your problem, right there. The overall concept of evolution is no longer a theory. Surely even the staunchest of Creationists must acknowledge the so called "short-term" evolution that gives us the ability to manipulate plants or breed wolves into dogs. Yes, as with most fields, a long time ago there were sets of theories. Like prior to Watson and Crick, back when you had Darwinian Evolution, Larmarckian Evolution, etc. Not anymore though. You might have theories about very specific things in the field that might be impossible to prove -- like, say, what the Last Eukaryotic Common Ancestor (LECA) looked like -- but Evolution is no longer a theory. The field moves forward while Tennessee makes themselves look like idiots from some forgotten era.

They're like the animals isolated in the Galapagos Islands ? They're still in the 1800's intelligence wise in Tennessee ?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Raul654]

"Surely even the staunchest of Creationists must acknowledge the so called "short-term" evolution that gives us the ability to manipulate plants or breed wolves into dogs. " - the standard creationist reply to this would be that they accept "micro evolution" (natural selection and adaption) but that they don't accept "macro evolution" (the ability for one species to evolve into another). Scientifically, there's no meaningful distinction between the two - it's only a difference of degree, not kind.

Most creationists do not accept the existence of beneficial mutations. (They argue that adaption only brings out attributes that already have some preexisting genetic basis, and that no new beneficial alleles can be created)

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[lgw]

Exactly. A friend of mine went to high school in Georgia. The biology teacher was legally required to teach evolution. Here's how she taught it.

"Today, I'm legally required to teach evolution. We all believe in Jesus, right? OK, next topic."

I doubt the Tenesee law will change much in the classroom, merely decriminalize common behavior.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[JaneTheIgnorantSlut]

Don't you mean "sun is the center of our solar system"?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[SuricouRaven]

Actually creationists have many counterarguments. You picked one of the more intelligent ones.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Flyerman]

Should be "sun is center of our solar system"

Sorry.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[C0R1D4N]

So, things that we take as fact "sun is center of our galaxy", "earth is round", is now a proven theory. But in essence, still a theory.

Sun center of our galaxy, huh? I see someone went to school on Tennessee

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[wasabii]

Evolution is still a theory. And a fact. The terms aren't exclusive.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[shoehornjob]

The Senate approved a bill Monday evening that deals with teaching of evolution and other scientific theories ...

Well, there's your problem, right there. The overall concept of evolution is no longer a theory. Surely even the staunchest of Creationists must acknowledge the so called "short-term" evolution that gives us the ability to manipulate plants or breed wolves into dogs. Yes, as with most fields, a long time ago there were sets of theories. Like prior to Watson and Crick, back when you had Darwinian Evolution, Larmarckian Evolution, etc. Not anymore though. You might have theories about very specific things in the field that might be impossible to prove -- like, say, what the Last Eukaryotic Common Ancestor (LECA) looked like -- but Evolution is no longer a theory. The field moves forward while Tennessee makes themselves look like idiots from some forgotten era.

^^^Needs some mod points^^^^ . I support their willingness to look the fool as long as they don't try to get into politics.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry.

Don't worry about it Flyerman ... er ... jhoegl ... ?

In theory, how many accounts do you have? Enough to that you were flipping through them to mod yourself up as far as you could when you noticed your error?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Anonymous Coward]

On the contrary, science has always touted the fact that everything it discovers as theory.

Discoveries are not theories. Theories are models which attempt to explain discoveries. Evolution is one such model which attempts to explain the discovered speciation.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't about the facts.

I mean the creationist counter argument is that it contradicts a bunch of fairy tales written thousands of years ago by sand people.

You aren't going to be able to get the idea of evolution through that brainwashed blank stare they throw up when you start talking about science.

Am I the only person who read "sand people" and immediately thought of the deserts of Tatooine *hoooooooark hoark hoark*?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Quanticfx]

Most creationists do not accept the existence of beneficial mutations. (They argue that adaption only brings out attributes that already have some preexisting genetic basis, and that no new beneficial alleles can be created)

Do they also refute the existence of non-beneficial mutations?

I don't have much knowledge on the subject and I'm probably wrong, but can't the existence of mutations can be proved through experimentation?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[lightknight]

Well put. Mod up.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Grandparent is misusing the word "theory" in exactly the same way the creationists do. Hint: is isn't synonymous with "notion" or "hypothesis".

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[gratuitous_arp]

When scientists say "theory" they mean something different than what most other people think of when they use the word. "Theory" is used in the "I'm pretty sure the thing I'm typing on is a keyboard, but I could be hallucinating and giving my cat, Whiskers, a backrub" sense. It's the best information that humans have, but we are humble enough to permit the idea that there is something unknown about the subject that could, if someday discovered by research, invalidate it.

It's correct to call evolution a scientific theory, people just don't understand why the word "theory" is used here and it gets misused into making evolution look less like "the only game in town."

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[AK Marc]

So the Law of Gravity is a theory? There is a theory about why it works, but that is separate from the Law of how it works.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[inasity_rules]

The problem with a young earth creationist, is his faith is based on the absurd idea that the bible is literal in on all counts, infallible on all counts (usually specifically the KJV translation), and anyone who dares say otherwise is trying to destroy their faith.

Your average young earth creationist's theology is laughably simplistic and he or she lacks any knowledge of the history of the church, the science of textual criticism or even basic literary device. This is the type of person who probably failed English literature at school. You can not even reason with these people. These single issue fanatics place their faith in their theories, not in God, and as a Christian, I find that extremely disturbing. I personally have no problem with the idea of evolution at all, and know a lot of Christians who don't either or simply don't care. But then I luckily do not have to live in America. They'd probably lynch me for a heretic... :)

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[AK Marc]

So... It's the hick California?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[ILongForDarkness]

Perhaps creationism has a place in a course on logic (eg. ontological, prime mover etc). I think to ensure freedom of religion or at least to keep the schools free from a biased view of religion it needs to be not only from the christian standpoint and more of an academic course rather than just a "we are a christian society and this is what christian's should believe" kind of course. I see nothing wrong with teaching religion as part of history, logic/philosophy, etc. It is a massive part of society. Even atheists often point to religious objects (churches, vatican, paintings etc) as being some of the finest works of art. It would be a shame to ignore the background of everything and just look at the paintings as pretty pictures. So much of the field was controlled by the church funding it, people's rather dreary look at the human state etc that the (mostly Catholic) church instilled in people in the 14-19th centuries. Similarly with science: we can't ignore the fact that these ideas had huge impact as to how people view themselves in relation to the universe and that there are still a large number of people that reject the ideas outright, or would modify them to include that God controls evolution to serve His purpose.

Separating the church from the state doesn't necessarily everyone in the state needs to remain ignorant of things religious just that the state shouldn't be controlled by the church(shrine, temple, insert whatever name you use for whatever building you consider sacred). I think the state has no place to say which religion is right but teaching facts about a religion and its place in history and culture? No problem there IMHO.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[leifb]

"sun is center of our galaxy"

I suggest you zoom your view-port out a bit more; You're in for a surprise

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Rosy At Random]

That's just a theory.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution is a fact. The theory of natural slection is our best explenation of this fact.

There is no controversy.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[RazzleFrog]

There are classes on religion and that's where this stuff belongs. A class on science has no business talking about religion.

And really this whole freedom of religion is really just that the government shall establish no state religion. Not that religions should have free reign to do whatever the hell they want.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[superdave80]

...science has always touted the fact that everything it discovers as theory.

Well, that's not entirely true. Things always start out as a theory, but once it has reached a certain level of certainty and repeatability, it is usually referred to as a law ('The law of gravity', etc.)

The great thing about science is that it is willing to look at just about anything that might overturn even something as concrete as a law... but you better have some proof to back it up. And the bible doesn't count as proof.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Cowardly primitive.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[ZooDog]

I did too, until I realized that he meant it as a derogatory term for people from the Middle East...

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I get so tired of morons telling me evolution is just a theory. I tell them, well gravity is just a theory. How 'bout I throw your stupid ass off the roof and test it.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[ColdWetDog]

Careful, dude. You're coming from a state that foisted Sarah (and Todd) Palin on the rest of the world.

You are certainly not taking the moral high ground here.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[chill]

Wikipedia puts it well. A physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens.

Also keep in mind Newton's "Law" of Gravitation is only a good approximation of low-mass behavior. When you say "Law of Nature" people assume graven in stone, unchanging and absolute. But that isn't what it means.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Oswald McWeany]

Shhh... he took a semester of school in Tennessee...

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[zlives]

FTFY "Sun center of our galaxy, huh? I see someone went to school on Tatooine"

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[RobertLTux]

"Well, there's your problem, right there. The overall concept of evolution is no longer a theory. Surely even the staunchest of Creationists must acknowledge the so called "short-term" evolution that gives us the ability to manipulate plants or breed wolves into dogs. "

adaption of a given species was never an issue with any sane Creationists (in fact its required due to the whole Flood and Re-population of the Earth thing) but what is an issue is a species generating "new" features and or becoming a new species (wolf > dog is not an issue wolf > Lion is a problem or a wolf "suddenly" becoming able to breath underwater is a problem)

btw dinosaur fossils were created during the flood so thats off the table also

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[theNAM666]

>The overall concept of evolution is no longer a theory.

Obviously, you don't know what SCIENCE is.

Everything in science is a THEORY. Everything in science is DISPROVABLE. That's the whole point. Science is refined scepticism. There are no ultimate facts; there are only 'facts' which provisional propositions subject to DISPROOF by other provisional 'facts.'

Your statement makes as much sense as saying 'the overall concept of Newtownian mechanics is no longer a theory."

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[wasabii]

Well, the "theory of evolution" does exist, and would include natural selection as one of the mechanisms to shape change. There's also simple drift.

It's still valid to refer to it all as the "theory of evolution", or "evolutionary theory", or some such.

Since it's also observable, it's also a fact.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[jeffmeden]

There are classes on religion and that's where this stuff belongs. A class on science has no business talking about religion.

And really this whole freedom of religion is really just that the government shall establish no state religion. Not that religions should have free reign to do whatever the hell they want.

Not that this is even worth mentioning, but the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" which goes a bit further than just "we won't have a state religion" and says that we *won't* have any law that specifically establishes (endorses) a religion as the precedent for governing (or running a government school.)

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[serviscope_minor]

You picked one of the more intelligent ones.

Given the general lack of intelligence, and the fact that their arguments change and adapt over time as new environmental conditions^W^W science comes up, you could almost say that the arguments evolve.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[AdrianKemp]

I am still stunned that people think this way...

You (not you, they) believe in the bible and Jesus and invisible friends in the sky, great. That in no way interferes with the proven fact that organisms evolve based on their surroundings.

Even if you want to completely dismiss that humans evolved, you should still (as an educator, no matter how dumb) desire to pass on knowledge.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[HornWumpus]

Laws are simplifications, they are generally known to be wrong. e.g. the Law of gravity (as generally stated) was disproven by Einstein.

Theories don't grow up to be laws. Laws are just handy formulations for the use of non-scientists like engineers.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[theNAM666]

>through that brainwashed blank stare they throw up when you start talking about science.

Oh, it's no brainwashed. Brainwashing implies the presence of a brain. People with brains, flee the South. The stare is just blank, like a doe.

-- Written from Nashville, home of the neo-right-wing-white-trash-moron-who-loves-mom-apple-pie-and-his-hound-dog (but-hates-black-folk-and-dem-liberals)

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Oswald McWeany]

on the absurd idea that the bible is literal in on all counts, infallible on all counts (usually specifically the KJV translation),

What makes it especially absurd is that KJV version differs the most from all the ancient sources used to translate from.

Fundamentalists like it better because the KJV altered the original text to avoid certain contradictions (like the fact that the source texts mention contradicting sources about who killed Goliath- KJV conveniently "corrects" what the source says to make it sound better - when mankind has to "correct" the source how can it be infallible?).

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[theNAM666]

>"sun is center of our galaxy"

Mr. Galileo, a word or two, please...

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[qmaqdk]

Nope

On a side note: *uuutiiiniii*

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[fullmetal55]

i wish I had mod points to give you. What I hope comes of this, is not so much the teaching of creationism as being on the same playing field as evolution, but allowing your mind to be open to other possibilities. Open-mindedenss is a learned skill. closing your mind to alternate theories is what is wrong with this creationism/evolution debate. both sides are guilty of it, evolutionists focus on the fact that the processes are well documented and observed etc. Creationists focus on the origin. the creation of mankind as the be-all and end-all of the discussion. the facts of evolution are never up for debate except by the evolutionist. Its like having a discussion about a hockey game. Creationists are argueing vehemently that their team won the opening face off. evolutionists are arguing that their team outplayed and out scored throughout the first two periods, and that the third period hasn't started yet. It all comes down to, "yeah but we won the opening face-off so we've won the game"

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Swanktastic]

There's truth to this, but it is extremely difficult to communicate this in a state-wide curriculum to elementary school children. It really takes a lifetime of study to truly understand and wrap your head around the nuances of the "theory of science."

If you're trying to teach these concepts to every kid out there, including the ones in the bottom 20% in performance, you can't really get into too many shades of gray before you've completely lost them. Children are pretty much programmed to learn Black and White concepts, and that is why this law is so dangerous.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[cpu6502]

>>>Evolution is no longer a theory.

Last time I looked it up, textbooks still said "Theory of Evolution" not "Law of Evolution". In fact I've had many professors over the years argue even Newton's Law of Gravity should be renamed a Theory, since the misnamed "law" has been debunked by later discoveries over the centuries.

In science ALL things are theories, because we will never have a complete understanding and the theories are eventually proven wrong (or at least flawed). Maybe if we evolve into the Q we'll finally understand it all, but that's definitely not the case now.

We have theories of how the world works. Not absolutes. Not laws.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[ugmoe]

Flashlight fish have bioluminescent organs beneath their eyes and usually live in deep water and have done so for thousands of years so we can assume that they evolved that capability through natural selection.

Glofish are tropical fish that were bred by injecting flourescent color genes from jellyfish into a zebra fish, and this glowing property is passed on to the fish's offspring. This feature was produced be intelligent design rather than natural selection.

If I gave you a fish that glowed in the dark - how would you determine if the glow was a product of evolution or a product of genetic engineering? Ugmoe

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[HornWumpus]

Don't look now, but the 'law of gravity', as generally written, was disproven by Einstein. Precession of Mercuries orbit etc.

Laws are just convenient formulas, often known to be wrong at edge cases.

Theories don't grow up to be laws.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[19thNervousBreakdown]

You're like someone who believes a princess can be awakened from death with a kiss, but not that there was ever a dwarf named "Grumpy".

"Why?" is a very powerful question, but you're attempting to insert a partial answer for no reason, which renders the question worse than useless. You're assuming that there was a will and a mind behind the "creation" of human beings, when absolutely every piece of evidence we've been able to find indicates that it was nothing more than natural laws.

The rest of your post is just a bunch of weird nonsense. I think you have mental problems. Which is fine. We need artists, and weirdos make the most creative ones. But you make terrible scientists, and shouldn't be given charge of our educational system unless we decide to base our country's economy on the creative arts.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[trout007]

But we are at the center of the known universe.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[jcaldwel]

Its amazing that she could get a degree in biology without "believing" in evolution. It's a bit like a physicist that doesn't believe in gravity. Next biology topic: Locusts only have four legs!

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[superdave80]

The great thing about science is that it is willing to look at just about anything that might overturn even something as concrete as a law.

Could you at least read my whole post before commenting on it. Thanks.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[dreemernj]

One definition of the word theory is: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.

I think this whole thing comes down to a lot of people not understanding this definition of the word "theory."

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Hatta]

Why didn't your friend sue?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[cpu6502]

>>>Evolution is no longer a theory.

Last time I looked it up, textbooks still said "Theory of Evolution" not "Law of Evolution". In fact I've had many professors over the years argue even Newton's Law of Gravity should be renamed a Theory, since the misnamed "law" has been debunked by later discoveries over the centuries.

In science ALL things are theories, because we will never have a complete understanding and the theories are eventually proven wrong (or at least flawed). Maybe if we evolve into the Q we'll finally understand it all, but that's definitely not the case now.

We have theories of how the world works.
Not absolutes. Not laws.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[The Archon V2.0]

Don't worry about it Flyerman ... er ... jhoegl ... ?

I have nothing to with this thread but I'm going to apologize too, just to be safe.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Petron]

Short-term or micro-evolution has been seen and studied for tens of thousands of years. Think about it, the dog we know today from the Chihuahua to the Great Dane all have a pedigree that stems from a wolf (Grey wolf from what most experts believe).

But, macro-evolution has yet to be proven. We can take any dog and cross breed it with another breed (Great Dane and Chihuahua are still genetically compatible), or with it's parent breed, the wolf. Even after massive physical characteristic changes, genetically the breeds of dog and wolf are still compatible.

At some point there is a break in the breeds, where the offspring is stillborn, sterile, or fertilization never takes place. The closest we have seen is between a donkey and a horse (creating a mule). We never breed donkeys from horses, or horses from donkeys, so there is quite a bit of mystery on what needs to take place for a macro-evolution step to take place. This is where the theory lives.

It's been a few years since I've done research in this area, if someone has found proof of macro-evolution, please post!

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Cro Magnon]

Me too, but I didn't realize those sandpeople were writing fairy tales. :P

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[tendrousbeastie]

Well given that the Law of Gravity is wrong, and has been superseded by the General Theory of Relativity, which is in itself probably wrong and needs replacing with something better, it does suggest that its status as a theory is correct.

Scientific theories present a model to explain observed data. They are valid in so far as they explain all known applicable data. If new data is found that voilates the theory then the theory needs replacing.

The general guiding principal is that a theory should also make testable predictions. Of central importance though, is that the predictions only go so far as to prove that the theory is now yet wrong, they can't (logically) prove that it is true.

This, incidentally, is were the theory of evolution has more difficulty than most, because the nature of the theory is such that it is hard for it to make too many predictions, which lends ammo to those who oppose it.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[SleazyRidr]

I certainly hope so, or at least I hope you're outnumbered by people like me who thought of Dune.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[inasity_rules]

Actually, if you look into even those sources, there is evidence of errors and corrections and possibly(though surprisingly little) tampering to promote one or another specific theology. I really wish more Christians would be brave enough to examine the sources of what they believe. I think it makes better Christians not worse ones. And honestly if you are worried examining the history and context of what you believe will make you stop believing, you probably don't believe to start with, so nothing is lost.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Flyerman]

I don't like correcting people. Especially an obvious error like that one, or typos.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Anonymous Coward]

shrine, temple, insert whatever name you use for whatever building you consider sacred

Waffle House, and I disagree with your assertion that the state shouldn't be run by it. They maintain a profit. The state doesn't.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[P-niiice]

That point you're trying to make answers nothing. Evolution has been observed everywhere, and in many contexts. ID has not been observed at all, and even genetically modified creatures who are able to breed in sufficient numbers will evolve.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[TheRaven64]

A science class that doesn't teach the history of science is practically religion itself. You don't teach science (well) by listing a load of current theories. You start with simple theories and go through the observations and experiments that invalidated them. Creationism definitely has a place there, because that is what people believed. You start by explaining that people believed that species never changed, and then list some of the examples that disproved this. Then you go on to things like ring species that demonstrate that the concept of a species is itself somewhat flawed and that speciation is a gradual process.

Science is a process, and without teaching the history surrounding each step in the process it's very hard for students to distinguish it from dogma.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[cpu6502]

Nice attempt at a slam, but it fails, because it doesn't matter how many accounts a poster has. They all share the same IP address, and slashdot moderation is tied to that IP.

IOW if I logged-out right now, and tried to mod myself up with another account, slashdot would not let me. Two accounts sharing the same IP cannot give each other +1 points.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Barsteward]

Aren't you glad you posted that using "Anonymous Coward "

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Empiric]

The overall concept of evolution is no longer a theory. Surely even the staunchest of Creationists must acknowledge the so called "short-term" evolution that gives us the ability to manipulate plants or breed wolves into dogs.

Since nothing in science ever actually "graduates" from a highly-tested "theory" into "fact" (yes, it's become remarkably popular to claim lately--still, as always, completely invalid science to claim any theory ever becomes absolute and non-provisional with respect to future data, NAS claims or no), I'd have to call this in particular "observable fact" (and, incidentally, well-known and described in terms of hybridization in Really Old Theistic Book).

On the other hand, the usual equivocation of "evolution", that is "evolutionary processes as the sole post-abiogenesis causal determinant of biological characteristics", isn't a theory, because it can't even be a scientific hypothesis--because it's wholly untestable.

Yes, atheists, I know you could care less about what you can validly say per valid science and which constrains your research and/or teaching of it in no way whatsoever, "evolution occurs"--and are only interested in advancing, essentially, the particular qualification "only evolution occurs". Unfortunately, that is not a scientific hypothesis, but a hopeful non-sequitur epistemologically equivalent to an inference from anecdotal information. Still not science when you -really-, -really- wish it was because of the inference you so want to make.

You cannot test for an absence of design, with respect to the distant past, any more than you can if I handed you a test-tube, noted it contains a virus, and refused to say whether me walking toward you from the Genetic Engineering Lab means that's where I got it, however much you're free to examine it afterward.

When it's said and done
I'll have my fun
I can chew anything I bite
--Ted Nugent

Downmod away.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[narcc]

Well, there's your problem, right there. The overall concept of evolution is no longer a theory.

Don't be stupid, of course it's a theory! That's the best Science can offer. The instant you call your model a fact or a truth you've officially stopped doing science.

That said, evolution is a wildly successful theory that I doubt will ever topple. Still, that doesn't change the fact that it's a theory!

I blame the ACA (especially Matt Dillahunty) for all the confusion about what is and is not a theory in the scientific sense. Here's my "bumper sticker" explanation: A theory is a predictive model. A hypothesis is a testable prediction.

I can't make it simpler than that . From that explanation, you can easily see that a theory can be totally wrong (the hypotheses it generates can all fail) and still be a scientific theory. (A theory doesn't start out as a hypothesis and later 'graduate' to theory once it's been 'well recieved and peer reviewed' like Dillahunty would have you believe. They're two totally different things, with theory preceding hypothesis.) Why this is so difficult for people, I'll never know.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[tendrousbeastie]

Ahh, please stop using this argument. The theory of gravity is wrong, in so far as it does not accurately describe observed data. This has been know for over a hundred years, and it has been replaced by the Theory of Relativity, which describes an entirely different model of what is happening.

We see an object moving towards the earth (or, more generally, any object moving towards any other without any obvious outside force). Newtons ToG says that the bodies exert invisible forces on eachother.

Einstein's ToR says that the space in which the object reside is warped by their mass and this causes the observed motion.

More modern explanations seem to hinge on some form of quantum force carrier, a Graviton, that mediation the energy transfer and causes the motion.

Each model has a different physical explanation, but all lead to the same observation that we see as "two object start moving towards eachother without any obvious outside interaction" that we call gravity.

If I jump off a roof I am sure I will fall to the ground and die. That doesn't tell me anything about the physical reasons for this.

The evolution thing is slightly different, as a lot of it seems to hinge of disputing the data, not the theory. If anti-evolutionists dispute the validity of fossils, carbon-14 dating, DNA mutation, etc. then the argument is not at the level of the theory, but rather the evidence that supports it.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Hatta]

Chances are the biology teacher didn't have a degree in anything resembling biology. Schools figure that they can take anyone with an education degree and make them teach anything.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[TheRaven64]

If I gave you a fish that glowed in the dark - how would you determine if the glow was a product of evolution or a product of genetic engineering?

Check the serial number on the bottom?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[MightyMartian]

Actually Darwin himself disproved Lamarckian descent.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[purplebear]

I see where it says Congress shall make no law respecting an _establishment_ of religion. I agree with the statement whole heartedly. I see nothing saying faith shall play no role in government. This country would not be as free as it is without men that relied heavily on their faith in God to determine that freedom. The field of science would not be as advanced as it is without men that relied heavily on their faith in God for wisdom and direction.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[MightyMartian]

That is until it goes once again to Federal Court, the Creationists are once again handed their asses on the state ends up having to fork over all kinds of money in damages and legal fees. Ah well, they can always blame pro-active courts legislating from the bench blah blah blah blah.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[MightyMartian]

Except of course Jefferson himself (one of the authors of the Bill of Rights) made it very clear what the authors' intentions were, and it was very much a "wall of separation" (his words).

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[MightyMartian]

Whether you can or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the science, which does not make statements one way or the other on the existence of God. If you have some creator entity that you think is falsifiable, then by all means provide your evidence, predictions you can make and ways in which it could be falsified. You know, do some bloody science.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[houghi]

There are classes on religion

Are they called "The controversy of religion."? I do not think so.
Controversy is just newspeak. Double plus non good.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[MightyMartian]

And a smaller group of con-artists willfully misusing the word.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[next_ghost]

And in the end, all of those "counterarguments" come down to the creationist having no fscking clue what evolution actually is and how it works.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[netsavior]

Don't forget we should be teaching biblical Pi instead of heathen devil math.

"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26

Clearly Pi = 3
Sinners.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[formfeed]

Its amazing that she could get a degree in biology without "believing" in evolution. It's a bit like a physicist that doesn't believe in gravity.

I stopped believing in gravity. I just have been hurt by it too many times. Earth just sucks.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[ILongForDarkness]

Religion had a huge impact on science (heck it still does since IMO it is the primary source of arguments against stem cell research and such). That extent it should be included in science class. Not a long discourse just "There was a lot of resistance to this view since it seemed to controdict the christian idea of a 6 day creation)." Same as physics class can mention that Galileo had problems because he didn't have a earth centric universe. You don't have to go into a big debate and detour into religion but giving context to the debate that lead to an idea getting acceptance, taking so long to come about etc is reasonable. Science class is often layer after layer of gradually more complex explanations for the same thing. Without context you have no idea why things came in the order they did, why one idea should be better at explaining the facts than another, why the obvious "final theory" didn't happen before going through all these nutty ideas (like the Ptolemy solar system) etc.

Heck I have a physics degree and I'd say that about half of my courses each year were just learning last years stuff at a lower level of resolution and using more complex math. First year physics learn circuit equations, second year learn E & M with a basic calculus bent, 3 rd year E & M with vector and complex analysis level math, 4th year E & M all complex analysis and quantum mechanics level of things to play around with particle wave equations etc. Ultimately the same result for most things but an increasing deep understanding of why the larger affect happens after the effect of billions of billions of small quantum and relativistic effects of interacting particles.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[bzipitidoo]

Be more careful with that word "believe". Science is most emphatically not about belief. Science is not a religion and takes nothing on faith. Science also does not claim to have all the answers. All of science is based on observable evidence, repeatable experiments, and logical deduction and modeling. I cringe a little every time I see that phrase "scientists believe" in reference to a hypothesis we think is likely true, or a theory, or some other bit of scientific thinking or uncertainty.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[spiffmastercow]

Okay, I'll bite. What freedoms do we have that were championed by the pious and condemned by the non-believers? And this must apply to the bulk of each side, not simply a few outliers.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[PReDiToR]

SSH tunnel, open proxies, your phone's 3G connection, Starbux WiFi, then go next door to McGonads, can you think of any more ways to evade the IP check?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[next_ghost]

Then you should play Knights of the Old Republic.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Oswald McWeany]

If you call a Fremen a "Sand Person" you're going to get your bottom returned to you on a plate. After all the water has been removed from it of course.

Unless you're talking about the wimpy descendants of the Fremen during the tyrant's reign.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[aaaaaaargh!]

I thought the problem was that The Senate approved a bill that deals with teaching of evolution.

It doesn't sound like a smart idea to me to let politicians decide---by law!---what can and cannot be taught in school. How about letting remotely competent people decide the curriculum?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Acron]

Actually, from my chemistry high school course, you start the scientific process by listing your assumptions. Assumptions are those things you assume to be true but can't prove are true. One of them proving to be wrong could cause your hypothesis/theory to be on very shaky ground. Now what would we call a course about assumptions/beliefs about the nature of the universe that can't be proved by data or the scientific process... Philosophy or Religious Studies sound like two possible candidates... Congress shall also make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, not just establishment. So yes, religions do have a bit more free reign.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The overall concept of evolution is no longer a theory.

Of course it is a theory. Just like electromagnetism is a theory and relativity is a theory. There is nothing beyond theories in science, it's the highest level a piece of scientific thinking can achieve.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Oswald McWeany]

When government can legislate due to religious emphasis- government becomes the religious authority.

You know what we'd have right now if government and religion were not seperate.

We'd have Pope Obama of America. Far right loonies often forget that if they had their way- Obama would get to dictate religion to them right now.

Combining religion and government all of a sudden must sound a lot less pleasing to them. If you want government to be able to pass laws on religion- you must accept the fact that that makes Obama the executive head of the American church.

All hail Pope Obama.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[ilsaloving]

Great... Now I can add "unable to count to 6" to my list of things to facepalm over.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[ILongForDarkness]

First off education != governing. Teaching someone something isn't the same as creating and enforcing laws which sole bases stem from religious beliefs. Second off: teaching a view != telling people that is the correct view. We teach different scientific theories without endorsing any particular one as the truth and the whole truth. You can teach religious ideas without saying that they are right or wrong. "Christians believe god is a purple elephant. Muslisms believe God is a blue pig." I didn't say which one is right, or that either view is right. A religious belief is different from a supposed scientific fact almost by definition since it is admitted (usually even by the religious people themselves) that they have these beliefs even without specific evidence. It is faith not a logical argument proving that X explains the data much better than Y.

Lastly, I'm fortunate not to be American so I really couldn't care a less about the constitution but my first argument still should hold I think. Teaching ideas is not the same as making a law respecting an establishment of religion. I think I've heard the argument the other way around too, that that clause says the government can't regulate religious institutions. To me the plan wording doesn't imply the opposite that religions can't establish a government.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[webheaded]

That's the problem though. The wording. People get all caught up on this wording and use it for these terrible arguments. You are, of course correct...but that doesn't change the sad reality of the matter.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[K. S. Kyosuke]

A non-euclidean geometry? Does that mean that God is just Cthulhu in disguise?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Adriax]

You neglect to take into account the amount of progress that has been lost because of religious people acting upon the words of their leaders (I won't say faith, because frankly organized religion is all about power for the clergy).
Not to mention the number of children killed by religious fanatics every year. Any number or them could have become great scientists, but we can never know.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Jason Levine]

The problem is that the word "theory" has different meanings to Scientists and Layperson. To a layperson, a theory is a guess as to how things are, often a guess with little to no evidence backing it up. To a scientist, a theory is an explanation that matches a set of data. This theory can be used to make predictions which will then either be proven true, thus supporting the theory, or shown to be false, thus causing the theory to be modified.

The Theory of Evolution has made many predictions and has even been wrong sometimes. Unfortunately for Creationists, it was wrong in small ways and the theory was easily modified to take these into account. The Theory of Evolution as it stands today might never reach the status of "Law", but it also is highly unlikely to be completely overturned. Of course, this doesn't stop Creationists from grabbing upon the scientific word "theory", applying the layperson definition, and touting this as proof that Evolution has no evidence supporting it.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Ihmhi]

you could almost say that the arguments evolve.

Well, we can at least say for sure that they weren't intelligently designed.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Yaztromo]

FTFY "Sun center of our galaxy, huh? I see someone went to school on Tatooine"

No, Tatooine had two suns, as it was in a binary system. As such, it's impossible for someone who went to school on Tatooine to hold any such belief of fact.

You can hand in your geek card to the Stormtrooper upon exiting the premises.

Yaz

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Oswald McWeany]

It's not a law because it is not measurable, can not give results with certainty for a certain dataset. That is why it is called a thoery not a law.

If we could measure a population of a certain time and say there will be exactly "x" new species- it would be a law. (we can kind of do this-counting non-fatal mutations but not with any predetermined accuracy)

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was going to college in Michigan, a friend of my girlfriend's came back to the dormitory in tears because her Biology professor A) began teaching evolutionary theory, and B) basically told her to shut the hell up when the girl started talking about bible stories. So, she was in tears, and the whole thing was somewhat amusing.

I got back to my dorm room, and told one of my roommates, a mechanical engineering major, about the crying girl. "Can you believe that?" I asked him. "In this day and age?"

"I know!" he said. "I mean, the Earth is only six thousand years old, everyone knows that! Her teacher must be nuts."

I stared blankly. He wasn't joking; he was being totally sincere. I got really, really drunk that night.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Ihmhi]

"earth is round"

Actually, it's oblong.

God must have hit the pedal on the pottery wheel just a little too fast.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Empiric]

Number of legs on an insect being the one thing evolution couldn't have changed, then?

Species are people naming things, even with the added air of authority of using Latin. Linnaean Taxonomy is not "how things really are", it is people naming stuff, according to largely-subjective criteria. Naming conventions rarely do, and never have to, fully correspond, as is the case with "species" and "kind".

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[ugmoe]

Intelligently designed organisms are all over. "In 2010, crops modified by molecular methods were grown in 29 countries on more than 360 million acres. " Detecting which organisms are products of intelligent design is big business although you can also buy a kit for classroom use for about $200.00 http://www.carolina.com/product/gm+food+extraction+and+amplification+kit+with+0.5-ml+tubes+(with+prepaid+coupon).do?keyword=detect+by+pcr&sortby=bestMatches "Explore a modern application of genetic engineering through this exciting laboratory activity. This activity investigates whether the soy or corn ingredients in various processed foods contain a genetic modification. Students isolate DNA from wild-type and GM plant material (provided controls), and from food products of their choice. They use the extracted DNA as a template in 2 separate PCR reactions run under the same conditions. " Certainly any organism will pass on its genetic traits through natural selection as determined by the environment, but it is an interesting question to me as to how to determine where the traits originated from. If you have a control to compare against - it is easy to determine if a trait was created - but what if you have no control to compare against? For example - if glowing fish were discovered in Laguna Chicabal today how could it be determined if the glowing trait had evolved naturally, or if someone had genetically modified some of the fish in the lake 40 years ago and those had fish reproduced and carried on the glowing trait? Ugmoe

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[AliasMarlowe]

Don't forget we should be teaching biblical Pi instead of heathen devil math.

"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26

Clearly Pi = 3
Sinners.

Yep, that's one of my favorite bible-giggles. Because it clearly states that Pi is 3.0 and not 3.1 even if it's just presumed to be an approximation. Those who claim the old testament of the bible is literally true tend to wriggle quite amusingly when that one comes up.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Acron]

Good heavens, perhaps if they had actually written that instead of what they did...

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[HeckRuler]

Do yourself a favor, read it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

We can, and have, observed evolution in action. It is both an observable fact and a theory. The fact is that it's happening, the theory is how it's happening. The theory has a lot of different mechanisms for explaining how it happens. Natural selection, genetic drift, inbreeding, outbreeding, and all sorts of other fun stuff. Currently the Out-of-Africa is the popular view for humanities spread.

If you weren't so indoctrinated, you'd probably have known all this.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Urban Garlic]

This reading requires a willful repudiation of the intent of the founders -- both Jefferson and Madison were clear in their many writings about the roles of the respective institutions, and the very phrase "separation of church and state" (along with "wall of separation", also often heard in this context) come from their writings.

Also, there is an eighteenth-century usage of the word "establish" which means what we might now call "mainstreaming" or "favoring", and not just creating or founding something.

I think it would be obviously unconstitutional, for example, if the US government were to use tax revenue to pay the salaries of the clergy in some church or other. The British government did this in the American colonies, the founders were quite familiar with it as a possible function of government, and quite deliberately excluded it.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Missing.Matter]

I was looking for this comment, but it's sad I had to scroll half way down the replies to find it. The thing with the scientific method is that you can't use it to prove anything. You can only use it to falsify a hypothesis. As you falsify hypothesis after hypothesis, some hypotheses beings to stand out as not falling down to observation. Eventually, these hypotheses get packaged into a body of knowledge scientists call a "theory". One such theory is the "Theory of Gravity" which you don't find much controversy about. Its constituent hypotheses have stood up to test after test, and thus we're pretty sure those describe the actual physical universe. But the scientific method never allows us to say for certain that those ideas are absolute fact.

I can draw a direct parallel to the development of the theory of evolution. There have been many competing hypotheses on how we got here, but after hundreds of thousands of experiments, the hypotheses we collectively call evolution stand where others have fallen.

Thus we get to this great debate about teaching the controversy. Essentially, these people want to teach either hypotheses that have fallen, or hypotheses that cannot be falsified (and thus are not appropriate to the scientific method). This, is why the "teach the controversy" debate is so counterproductive. Not because it aims to add discourse to the scientific method (which is already there), but because it aims to add non-science to the scientific method.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Anonymous Coward]

That says a lot about the level of science that the teacher comprehends. Jesus and evolution have no conflict, at all.

The Vatican even recently said that there is no conflict between the science of evolution and christianity, and rejects intelligent design.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Pope_Benedict_XVI_and_today

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[MightyMartian]

Did they need to, and is not the Supreme Court permitted to look at the opinions of those that wrote the Bill of Rights to underline intent. Courts can look at old decisions to build a body of case law and interpretation, and so it follows that from that concept stems the one where if one of the authors of a constitutional clause has on record explaining the meaning and intent, ought that not have the same weight?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[purplebear]

Very faithful men were the ones that wrote in the freedom guaranteeing that the same thing that happened in the Great Britain, causing them to rebel and break away, could not happen here. Those freedoms are being eroded today.
The constituation of these United States in incompatible with the US becoming a non-Christian nation.

I am not talking about religion. See my other comment.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[wardred]

There may very well be a God, or Gods - interesting how anybody wanting a Christian bent in the classroom really, really doesn't want Native American Gods taught, or Buddhism, or what have you.

That's not the point. So far as we've been able to determine the presence of a Goddess, God, Gods, or even Spirits is not provable, so outside the realm of science. There is no evidence we've been able to measure one way or the other. There is plenty of evidence supporting evolution. The existence of a being or beings we have no empirical evidence for doesn't belong in a science class room. Noting how religion(s) have affected a particular scientific subject might be worth noting, but anything much more detailed would probably be better off in a history class.

Heck, most Christian sects, including the stodgy old Catholics, have agreed that evolution and creation may coexist and that the Bible's 6 days of creation is not necessarily a literal 6 days starting at whatever date you'd like to choose. It's the minority Christian view of the "literal creationism" that seems to be butting heads with evolution.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Oswald McWeany]

Yet the ironic thing is- even after over a century of people laughing at Lamarck- recent discoveries of epigenetics prove he wasn't entirely crazy- there is a small degree of lamarckian inheritance going on ...

Your life experiences won't alter the genes your children inherit- but it could alter how those genes are expressed and which ones are activated or not.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

>Do they also refute the existence of non-beneficial mutations?

Yes. They will refute the existence of anything, if they think it will support creationism. This includes denying the existence of things that obviously exist including things that they cited as supporting creationism in the previous paragraph.

>I don't have much knowledge on the subject and I'm probably wrong, but can't the existence of mutations can be proved through experimentation?

Yes their existence can be observed. Creationists will deny all sorts of things in the face of blindingly obvious evidence. This is because they know they are right, therefore anything that might disprove their belief in creationism is, by definition, wrong at best and most likely satanic.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[LordLimecat]

What do Watson and Crick have to do with evolution?

IIRC from bio 101, their fame is from imaging DNA, and possibly something with transcription. Wikipedia doesnt offer any clues as to the link.

Can you clarify please?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Acron]

You know, after you define the terms, do a substitution and restate it, and you will find it does not support your conclusion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" becomes "Congress shall make no law with respect to/concerning/regarding a religious establishment". Absolutely nothing there about "or be affected by any religion".

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[ILongForDarkness]

The government does use tax money for that purpose though since they give exemption from tax to religious organizations (in the US that means primarily churches). Exempting someones business activities from taxation is equivalent to giving them whatever their taxes owing should have been as a subsidy. It is effectively saying "we aren't going to tax you because what you are doing is so noble and a great thing for society". If not taxing religious organizations is okay than teaching not preaching what the various beliefs are out there in school should be okay too. If you aren't being biased in which one is right how is the knowledge itself interfering. I don't understand how ignorance is meant to protect people.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[ILongForDarkness]

Wingery (a place with chicken wings) for me :-)

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[X0563511]

Lets not forget the whole "well then He designed this process!" angle you can throw at them. Evolution and Intelligent Design are not mutually-exclusive in their own right.

If they start that whole "the earth is only a few thousand years old" nonsense just feed em some doublespeak until they just accept that both exist. We'll all be happier if they do.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[RedDeadThumb]

I actually heard this question asked on the show "Are you dumber than a first grader". True or false, the sun is at the center of the universe. The contestant, of course, answered true.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Raul654]

"Do they also refute the existence of non-beneficial mutations?" - No, they claim that mutations are always detrimental.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[X0563511]

Next biology topic: Locusts only have four legs!

Well, sure. If you think of the front leg pair as arms, instead. I could totally see that. You have people - 2 legs, 2 arms. Animals - 4 legs. It's less a stretch to think 4 legs with 2 arms than 6 legs. Just a different way to think about it.

I mean, classification of such things is arbitrary.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[turbidostato]

"Weird. You don't believe souls exist in reality, but believe ideal mathematical circles do. How does that work?"

It works by not working that way.

Circles don't *exist*; circles *are*.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Dahamma]

I think you should go look up the definition of "scientific law". Nowhere does it claim to be an absolute truth, in fact that's not even remotely what it means. If your professors seriously argued changing Newton's Laws to theories, they don't understand the terminology either.

In fact, a law is not even really on the same continuum as a theory - a theory is an explanation for a phenomenon, and a law is just a statement of results *in specific circumstances*. A scientific law can be disproved, sure, but it makes no sense to be "demoted"...

That misunderstanding is one of the primary weapons of the anti-science creationists who try to introduce doubt where none really exists by claiming that "evolution is just a theory". In science not *all things* are theories, but certainly all *explanations* are theories (in various levels of certainty).

The National Academy of Science has a nice statement summarizing this:

Why isn't evolution called a law?
Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur. Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science."

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[X0563511]

Well, they are certainly not intelligently designed...

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[MozeeToby]

In fact your professors are quite wrong, there is nothing that says that a scientific law has to be correct, or that a theory must have less evidence than a law. The terms describe different things. A theory is an explanation as to how and why something happens. A primitive rodent becomes a rabbit. How? Via changes to it's genetic code. Why? Because natural selection chose attributes that increased the chances of survival. A law, on the other hand, is just an expression, usually based in math, of what happens. I drop a weight and it falls to the floor with constant acceleration. It says nothing of what causes the weight to fall.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[turbidostato]

"The Vatican even recently said that there is no conflict between the science of evolution and christianity, and rejects intelligent design."

That would mean something if the USA extreme relgious nuts were catholics. Hint: they aren't.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[X0563511]

Your issue is that you are using the modern speaking definition of "establish," and not the Olde Tyme legalese definition.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[oldmac31310]

You learn something new (and wrong) every day!

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[LordLimecat]

That passage references insects with a pair of legs above their 4 feet. It doesnt say that they have 4 legs, and its a little absurd to try to imagine that people who were in the practice of eating these things would be unaware of the number of appendages they have. Look at a picture of a grasshopper and then tell me that its reasonable for someone familiar with it to not see 6 appendages.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[X0563511]

Unfortunately they chose not to put that into writing in the piece itself, and instead left it out in the "he said" realm where it doesn't actually matter.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[scot4875]

Those weren't children. End of discussion.

--Jeremy

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Darinbob]

Except that this is naive even for someone who is a Christian. What she's really saying is "We all believe in Jesus and the particular dogma that I myself believe and that creation account was literal and happened in 144 hours as measured by an atomic clock, right?" How does she explain people who believe in Jesus and also in evolution or parts of evolution? What about teaching evolution as a tool to help with biology? I mean we know that the Newtonian laws of physics are not accurate but we still teach them because they're a useful tool to understand physics.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[X0563511]

Newton's Law of Gravity should be renamed a Theory

There's a reason we call it Newton's Law of Gravity, not The Law of Gravity.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[similar_name]

Evolution is a theory. Like the theory of relativity or the theory of flight it is a tested explanation of observations. It is just that most people think theory, speculation and hypothesis all mean the same thing. It may be pedantic but I hate the argument that a theory somehow means it is just speculation.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[turbidostato]

"Science is most emphatically not about belief"

He didn't say nothing like that. Science is not about believes; teaching mostly is.

"I cringe a little every time I see that phrase "scientists believe""

Quite a different issue but, anyway, you shouldn't cringe: a given scientist certainly believe what he says.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[MightyMartian]

Except obviously it does matter, because SCOTUS has used the metacomments to inform First Amendment decisions for years.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[jellomizer]

However with scientist jump up and down Ranting and Raving that they shouldn't listen to their parents/pastors and other pillars of the community, and insulting their religion as a bunch of fairy tails, will do nothing to help teach Evolution, all it will do is strengthen the resolve of the other side. As those Atheist Scientist are trying to corrupt the minds of the young to make them live sinful lives.

The middle ground solution is this (being that it is a middle ground solution both sides will not really like it) Science is a process, a key element of this process is the idea that the simplest explanation is best explanation. Having a supernatural force is a more complicated answer, especially when you see evidence proves the simpler evidence. It doesn't mean that the complicated answer is invalid however in science it cannot be used as a variable to explain things.

Saying God did it is a complex answer, that means we will need to ask why did he do it, why did he put evidence that shows a simpler answer, if the Devil did it, why doesn't God some him... Religion isn't science. Science may not be actual truth. Religion may be wrong too. However when you are dealing with the world science gives us a better explanation on what goes on that is more consistent. However we could just as easially be a Brain in a box being fed stimuli that simulates real life while what is really real is compleatly different... However that isn't science either, because we have no way to prove that what we are experience is not real.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[X0563511]

Meh it's all dependent on your frame of reference and therefor not worth caring about.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[LordLimecat]

And apparently this isnt a new response. Here's Adam Clarke's take on the passage, out of the early 1800's:

Going upon all four - May signify no more than walking regularly or progressively, foot after foot as quadrupeds do; for it cannot be applied to insects literally, as they have in general six feet, many of them more, some reputed to have a hundred, hence called centipedes; and some a thousand, hence called millipedes; words which often signify no more than that such insects have a great number of feet.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[X0563511]

... can I play too?

I said I'm sorry! :D

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Dahamma]

Well, besides the fact that your statement is incorrect (I'll assume you meant solar system!) - neither of those is really a theory in a scientific sense. They are facts, ie. observable phenomenon. A theory would be an explanation for the phenomenon, like "objects orbit the sun because of gravitational attraction" (which at a high level is the same theory of why the earth is round, of course).

I suppose in antiquity they may have been "theories" in the sense of "educated guesses", but not really in the sense of the scientific method. That's actually the problem - creationists want to define the term as an educated guess, whereas scientists define it as an explanation that has been supported by extensive facts and observations.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[FrootLoops]

But it isn't! Even in a simplistic single-planet solar system, the planet has an elliptical orbit with the star at one focus, not at the center of the ellipse (and certainly not at the center of mass). More planets give more perturbations; I've also neglected general relativity and quantum mechanics which add even more trouble. Of course, it's far more correct to say the sun is at the center of the solar system than to say the earth is, just like it's far more correct to call evolution a law rather than a theory, at least to the average person.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[MozeeToby]

but once it has reached a certain level of certainty and repeatability, it is usually referred to as a law ('The law of gravity', etc.)

This misconception fuels all kinds of others so lets just get it settled. What you say is, in fact, incorrect. Theories do not become laws when they get enough evidence behind them, because theories and laws are two different things.

Theories are models that try to explain an observation. A theory of gravity would be general relativity: gravity is caused by the warping of 4 dimensional spacetime, objects that appear to be falling are in fact following a straight line through 4d space. It explains why objects are seen to fall. A law of gravity is based strictly on empirical evidence and describes what happens.

A law of gravity would be the law of universal gravitation which says that any two objects are attracted to each other in proportion to their masses and the inverse squares of the distance between them. It says nothing about why that should be the case, only that this is what has been seen in the universe so far.

In fact, we know that the theory of special relativity is closer to reality than the law of universal gravitation. That doesn't mean that the law of universal gravitation shouldn't be a law anymore, nor does it mean that special relativity should be.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[JustSomeProgrammer]

Because people feel so insecure about moderation that they would work to try to trick the filters just for a +1? Anyone who would do that REALLY places no value on their time and WAY too much on Slashdot moderation.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[LordLimecat]

It might surprise you that the founders were not in universal agreement on all things, especially religion, especially Jefferson.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[RedDeadThumb]

Breed and then sell them and see if anybody sues you.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Acron]

Who else besides Jefferson and Madison? What percentage of the founders supported which standpoints over the issue? And in any case, the actual wording of the amendment reflects the combined will of those that put it into place, not just the personal opinions of a few of them. So for all I know you are simply quoting the more extreme opinions of a few of the more liberal members of the founding fathers (or conversely they were expressing the most common opinion *shrug*). The cause of the intent is clear from the history books over how governments had used religion as a tool of oppression and political expression. I'd be curious at the overall reaction of the founding fathers to our modern brewhaha over nativities and 10 commandments in court rooms. From www.dictionary.com, we find establish [ih-stab-lish] = verb (used with object) 1. to found, institute, build, or bring into being on a firm or stable basis: to establish a university; to establish a medical practice. 2. to install or settle in a position, place, business, etc.: to establish one's child in business. 3. to show to be valid or true; prove: to establish the facts of the matter. 4. to cause to be accepted or recognized: to establish a custom; She established herself as a leading surgeon. 5. to bring about permanently: to establish order. Perhaps someone can dig us up the fuller list of definitions from an unabridged Websters or what not? My family once had a beautiful old dictionary that must have weighed 20 pounds and was 10" thick. Unfortunately that's harder to quick grab for a copy and paste online. ^_^

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[jellomizer]

Well... Pi roughly being 3.14159 and a cubit being the length of a fore arm. It is quite clear that his arm stretched a bit after he measured the diameter.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Jedi Alec]

I agree, there are still many things we do not know about gravity and how it does what it does.

However, there is one thing about gravity one could say the scientific community is relatively certain about, and that is that it is there.

Which is a shame really, because maybe otherwise folks that bring up this argument could stop believing in it and would just float off the goddamn planet.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[SuricouRaven]

Evolution? You think too narrowly. The old-earth creationists contest evolution, but it's hard to find a field that the young-earthers don't contest in some way.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Adriax]

How many of those were actual choices made by healthy women with reasonably viable pregnancies they got themselves into, and how many were medical treatments to save the woman's life/health? Or unwanted pregnancies forced on them by men who wouldn't take No from a "stupid little chick who should just shutup and take it" (or even worse, "I'm the man of the house, I raised her, she obeys me!")?
And how many are from fertilized eggs that never implanted because of morning afters? Or just the pill in general?

And to get a goodwin in here, compare how many jewish people were lost in 5 years because the germans decided the jewish religion was inferior to their's?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[jellomizer]

I disbelieve in gravity, I think it is just the universe expanding at an accelerated rate pushing me back...

I choose not to explain how orbits achieve... It is probably something about 4th dimension or something.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Empiric]

So you're suggesting that if this was stated as having been found in a population of insects, having evolved that leg configuration over the last 3000 -hours-, by BioScience Journal, you'd doubt the claim for a second?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[spiffmastercow]

Been smoking the wacky tobaccy that god left out on the ground for you? The founding fathers were mostly deists. They believed in a god that didn't give a crap. They didn't pray.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Anonymous Coward]

Fundamentalists are heavy on the ground here in SC, but I never once had a teacher who suggested evolution was not real.

We went to school during the week and church on Sunday, and eventually I figured out that the people at church believed some really unlikely shit.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[lgw]

Read a bit about life in the middle ages. There was a time when the church did actually protect people from the depredations of government authority. Since then? Not so much.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[AK Marc]

I'm neither from, nor in, Alaska. I was born in Texas, but can claim I had nothing to do with GWB either, though I have worked for the Texas-based company that owned the drilling rig that caused the oil spill in the Gulf.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Evolution is still a theory. And a fact. The terms aren't exclusive.

Evolution is as much a fact as Santa having workshop in the north pole is a fact.

Evolution is a widely believed theory but a fact it is not!

You are quite wrong. That evolution occurs is an observed fact. It has been observed to occur both in nature and in the laboratory. By evolution here I mean that speciation has occurred. This is not new news, and literally thousands of citations are available in the literature. How evolution occurs is described by a number of theories, Darwinian natural selection, Lamarckian natural selection, modern synthesis, punctuated equilibrium, etc. Some of these theories are supported by more evidence than others. However, it is a fact that evolution occurs.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[LordLimecat]

Calling it a law of gravity implies that we understand it to the smallest detail and can explain how it works in detail.

My understanding is that not only is that not the case, but it is suspected that it can never be explicitly proven (AFAIK if gravitons exist it is speculated that they are so infinitesimal that they would be impractical to detect with any technology we might reasonably come up with).

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[amck]

The term "law" is outdated terminology in science: it typically meant an empirically determined rule, with or without explanation.
So it is / was a set of observations, rather than an explanation. Its too easily confused with theory and the term is avoided today.

The era of Laws in science, mostly the 18th and 19th centuries, was when many "Laws" were discovered, but the underlying theories were not known. They were a useful stepping stone to codifying our knowledge, but should not be confused with theory.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Acron]

One of the authors? No. That is his opinion. The final document is the consensus of the entire group, not just one author. If the Supreme Court looks at the combined opinion and attempts to establish the consensus opinion/body of writings upon which to base their increased understanding of the final document, fine and good. Just one or two authors? No. Their personal writings are just that, their personal opinions. If Jefferson intended a separation of church and state and used that particular phrase several times, why did it not make it into the final document? Either the final document's wording truly expressed that (which it does not appear to do so to me), or it was what he had hoped/intended to accomplish but he had to bow to political expediency and gaining consensus and had to settle for something else. As I have yet to see here any rational logical argument demonstrating how "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" results in "separation of church and state" without the introduction of statements not present in the actual amendment or constitution, I feel the weight at this point is on the latter rather than the former.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Oswald McWeany]

The US has never been "a Christian nation". Which men "of faith" wrote in our freedoms?

Jefferson who rewrote the bible taking out the "superstitious nonsense". Perhaps Quincy Adams who we have letters that he wrote mocking Christianity and talking of it disdainfully. Perhaps George Washington who refused any religious solace on his deathbed and expressed that he didn't want a Christian burial service.

Perhaps Benjamin Franklin- who we also have written evidence that he did not believe in a God still currently active in watching humanity.

Perhaps we're talking about the senate under the second president who unanimously signed the Treaty of Tripoli after it was read out (that included the words probably not verbatim "The United States Of America is and never has been a Christian nation").

The vast majority of those that "wrote-those freedoms" would be offended if you called them Christian.

The fact is- everyone should be allowed to worship however they darn please. But don't try fooling people or rewriting history to make it seem like it is a "recent-innovation" that this is a non-Christian country. Even Abraham Lincoln, the president responsible for preserving the union many years after the founding fathers wrote an essay exposing the evil of religion, specifically Christianity.

We are a secular nation. We should be a secular nation. Let people worship whatever god they want- but keep it out of politics and government. Remember the religious have the most to lose. If government and religion are not seperate- that means Obama is executive head of religion. You must recognise him as the authority in religion.

Is that what you want? It works both ways- even when a leftie non religious man is in power- he is still the head of religion in you dystopian view of the United States where religion and government are one.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[turbidostato]

"Last time I looked it up, textbooks still said "Theory of Evolution" not "Law of Evolution". In fact I've had many professors over the years argue even Newton's Law of Gravity should be renamed a Theory"

Except, of course, they would be wrong. Law of Gravity is in fact a law and it -of course too, doesn't matter if it is right or wrong for it to be a law.

It is a law because it clearly states a simple mathematical way that relates some magnitudes to others.

Evolution by random mutation and selection of the best fitted is, in the other hand, a theory because, disregarding if it's right or wrong, it states some general principles that bias our view of certain aspects of reality.

General approximation: if it can be reduced to a single mathematical formula, it is usually a law; if it can be explained in a few phrases that can't be reduced to mathematical formulae, it is usually a theory.

"In science ALL things are theories"

Obviously not. "Planets go around the Sun in perfect circles" is a law. A false one, but a law nevertheless (as it would be a law if it said "planets go around the Sun in perfect squares", by the way). E=m*c^2 is a law too, that happens to be true as far as I know.

On the other hand, Special Relativity is a theory and within that theory there is the aforementioned law that relates energy to mass. Ptolemaic cosmography is a theory too and within that theory there's the law that relates planetary orbits to a constant radius and Pi.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[lgw]

On the contrary, all of the fundamentals of science are taken on faith. It's just that these assertions are very fundamental indeed. But it's just blind assertion that logic works, that an objective universe exists, that the laws of that universe are reasonably consistent over time, and at a distance.

In short, science is based on the faith that the observed universe is not some sort of practical joke at our expense. The older I get, the less certain of that I become.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[X0563511]

It matters because the people who decide what matters agreed with it... not because it matters on it's own merit.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[theNAM666]

Evidently one of the Suhthernours picked up his shotgun and fired off "-1, Disagree. // White fascism shall rise again!"

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[amck]

No; theories are never proven, they can only be disproven (in science. Theorems in math are a different matter).

In science we divide things into theories and facts: we observe and measure the facts, and derive theories to explain them.
Theories never become fact.

E.g We have the fact of gravity, the observations that the Earth is round(ish). We have theories to explain these.
We have Einsteins theory of general relativity to explain gravity.

For evolution, we have the observed facts of evolution (you can see evolution in front of your eyes in a hospital pathology lab. Look at generations of bacteria in a day ... ). We have the Darwinian Theory of Natural Selection to explain it.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Mr. Firewall]

They're like the animals isolated in the Galapagos Islands ? They're still in the 1800's intelligence wise in Tennessee ?

I see you've never lived in Tennessee. Short answer: yes.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[LordLimecat]

Your post implies that if we look at a different translation we get a different killer of Goliath. From the ESV:

1Sa 17:49 And David put his hand in his bag and took out a stone and slung it and struck the Philistine on his forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the ground.
1Sa 17:50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and struck the Philistine and killed him.

Care to give a source to your statements? Or would you prefer to rest on vague accusations that cant be fully disproven (because of their vagueness)?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Mousit]

Many schools across the country (though especially in the remarkably poorly rated school systems of the Deep South) don't even require an education degree. Or a degree at all. Often you can get by with a simple certification.

The whole "gym teacher also teaching science/biology/etc class" is a classic stereotype but very real. I can't remember what grade, by one of my biology teachers was indeed also the gym teacher. And he didn't even have a phys ed degree, let alone a science degree.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[KhabaLox]

You haven't read the classic, "Princess Leia and the Seven Jawas?"

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[gorzek]

I beg to differ. "Intelligent Design" implies that some level of intelligent forethought went into the eventual products of evolution. Saying "God guided the process" or otherwise suggesting that evolution can work in a deterministic fashion is utterly wrongheaded and unscientific, and it gives people the false impression that evolution, as a process, is in some way goal-oriented. But it isn't, and it never has been. You'd be surprised how many people believe evolution is about making less complex organisms into more complex ones, or making the next generation "better" in some objective way than the current one. They imagine it as an iterative improvement process, building toward something specific.

If people understood that evolution does not actually work that way, "Intelligent Design" would be a completely moot point.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[StikyPad]

It's simple really. The agency measuring the diameter was using the metric cubit, while the division measuring the circumference was using the imperial cubit.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[mapkinase]

"The overall concept of evolution is no longer a theory"

Surely it ain't no scientific theory.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[GospelHead821]

Speciation is kind of a tricky idea to pin down. I took some supplemental biology classes a few years back and finally had it explained to me in a sensible way. I'd always heard species defined as those animals that, when bred, could not produce sterile offspring. It always troubled me, though, WHEN does that happen? When one mutation finally pushes an animal over that threshold and it can't breed with the rest of the animals, how would that line continue to develop?

What I learned is that speciation happens by degrees, beginning, typically with populations of animals that can't breed together they are separated. As the animals evolve different structures or behaviours, they WON'T breed together if introduced, even if genetically compatible. And then finally, after many generations, the two populations become so genetically distinct that their mating couldn't produce fertile offspring. Dogs and wolves are probably still the same species and could/would mate if allowed to - but some dog breeds may be too small or have behaviours too different from wild wolves for them to mate. In-vitro fertilization would probably produce fertile offspring even in those cases. Who knows how long it will take for them to genetically diverge altogether.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Pope]

It's a small galaxy, really.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[MightyMartian]

The people you speak of were Supreme Court justices who used the opinions and explanations of the Framers to inform their decisions. You see, unlike people like Ron Paul, SCOTUS justices actually are interested in context, and not just in mindless religious interpretations of the Constitution.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Altrag]

"Scientists believe" is a perfectly valid phrase in many contexts. Take for example the big bang. The math (mostly) works out to be sure, but we have no actual proof of it, never mind considering what may have come before the big bang.

We're entirely missing one of the key components of science you listed -- repeatable experiments. And the observable evidence is 14 billion years old (and the really interesting parts are almost entirely obscured by the fact that the early universe wasn't transparent to light.) We've still got logical deduction and modeling, but those can never recreate the full story with complete accuracy. There will always be some variables we can't deduce just by looking at the aftermath.

So to say a scientist 'believes' in the big bang isn't really wrong. Its not quite the same kind of faith-based belief that you see in religion, but neither is it a hard and solid fact that they can absolutely guarantee to be true.

There are similar arguments in say, gravity. Obviously everyone believes that a ball will return to the ground if they throw it, but when you get down to the details of gravity, its not so clear. Questions like whether gravity is a field with a force carrier (graviton) or is a true warping of spacetime as in Einsteins original equations is something we've still not entirely worked out. Most scientists want to believe in the former (as the latter pretty much rules out any sort of GUT above the Planck scale.. and we're not going to be able to experiment on that level for many decades, maybe centuries.. if its even possible) but the coin is still in the air.

Various string theories (and competing non-string theories), particular evolutionary paths for damned near anything, the extinction of the dinosaurs, etc. Basically anything that hasn't had (or can't have) all four of your criteria met within our short period of recorded history is subject to some measure of belief purely by necessity.

Which can be a problem at times. There's no shortage of examples in history where so many scientists believed in a theory that it was just assumed to be a fact, even among the scientific community -- until someone ends up proving them wrong. Heliocentricity, the model of the atom, quantum mechanics, etc all went through this to varying degrees. (Of course, not EVERYONE believed the common stories, but those who didn't tended to keep their mouths shut for fear of ridicule or worse until they had a complete and incontrovertible proof ready to go.. but only one such person is really needed.. anyone else who was working towards the same goal tends to get lost to history and we only remember the one breakthrough guy.)

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[StikyPad]

The freedom to teach "science," obviously.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Pope]

Creationism isn't science, and has no place in a science classroom. That has nothing to do with being "open minded." Creationism is a political creation.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[MightyMartian]

I never said they were in universal agreement on everything. The Federalist papers and other records of the time show that. And yet, no one at the time contested Jefferson's interpretation of the First Amendment's intentions. It is only with the rise of a sort of Constitutional literalism where if you go outside of the Constitution itself to find context to a clause in the Constitution to create a ruling, you're somehow some anti-constitutional heathen. It's not like SCOTUS has been consulting the stars, they invoked the writings of Madison, Jefferson et al to frame the discussion of the breadth and intention of the First Amendment.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[An Ominous Coward]

Google "ring species". A parent species hits a geographic barrier and populations move in a ring around it. Opposite sex members of any two neighboring populations can breed true, until you get to the far side of the ring. The last population at the end of the "clockwise" arc cannot breed (even to produce sterile hybrids) with the last population at the end of the "counterclockwise" arc.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[X0563511]

If people understood that evolution does not actually work that way, "Intelligent Design" would be a completely moot point.

Unfortunately this is not going to happen... you have to work with what you have (eg compromise in some way (like what I said)) or just deal with it.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[HornWumpus]

No matter how I read it, you remain wrong.

Theories don't become laws. Laws remain laws even when known to be wrong (true in a limited domain).

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[X0563511]

Yea well - unfortunately there are and always will be people who read it literally and ignore context. So, to be safe and ensure what you want is what actually happens, you have to spell it out exactly like you want, and not leave such specifics as asides or to be assumed.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[517714]

It amazes me that otherwise seemingly intelligent people will go stupid/blind/deaf in discussions of religion regardless of their position. An obvious and reasonable conclusion is that 9.54929659 cubits from brim to brim was rounded to ten and the circumference was thirty cubits, or that both values were rounded. To presume that ten cubits was exact and that the circumference was incorrect mathematically is not logical, but as it serves your purposes you choose to stick to that version in which a conflict exists between the Bible and math or science when it does not. If you read the entire chapter you will see that no fractions were used in any of the descriptions, so we can reasonably conclude that some of those values were rounded, it would be odd if every item mentioned was an integral number of cubits high, wide or deep.

You really should think these things through better. Yours is not even close to a reasonable argument, it is down there with arguments made by creationists and intelligent design advocates. There is no issue with the literal interpretation of that passage, and none that is necessarily inconsistent with science or math. There are hundreds of conflicts between statements in the Bible and science, but you are barking up the wrong tree on this one.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[readin]

Its amazing that she could get a degree in biology without "believing" in evolution. It's a bit like a physicist that doesn't believe in gravity. Next biology topic: Locusts only have four legs!

For the specific example of the biology teacher - I don't care whether the biology teacher believes in evolution or not. I want a teacher who can present the evidence and the theory in a clear and interesting way, without getting preachy for either side of the debate.

So you believe that for someone to properly study Islam, they must believe in Islam? For someone to be a student of Greek gods and goddesses, the person must believe in those gods and goddesses?

I think my eighth grade teacher handled the question perfectly. When he introduced the topic he said we didn't have to agree with the theory but that to be educated people in the modern world we had to understand it. If I remember correctly, some (perhaps most) of the test questions started with the phrase, "According to the theory of evolution...".

Assuming that the evidence and the logic speak for themselves, the students will be able to decide for themselves so long as they have the evidence and the theory presented to them, so there is no need to get upset that the teacher isn't trying to force the students to believe in the theory - they can figure it out.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[scot4875]

Except none of the examples of intelligently designed species you have were designed by God. None of the other species on Earth can be proved to have been designed by God. If there is an intelligent designer, it could have just as easily been aliens or the tooth fairy. Can you prove that it wasn't aliens or the tooth fairy?

"God did it" isn't a useful answer to anything. It doesn't improve our understanding of the universe. It doesn't allow us to make predictions about the future. It has no practical applications to anything in day to day life.

--Jeremy

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[pijokela]

So that's the way it's written in Bible. I've heard about this many times, but never bothered to find the actual text. But.. that's really not very wrong. If you allow for some measurement error:

Assuming pi = 3.14, which would be quite accurate. Take a bit of the 10 cubits to, say 9.6 and:
9.6 * 3.14 = 30.1

All the numbers round to the correct values and they are all reasonably accurate for measuring a "molten sea". Really, this doesn't prove anything. I was hoping for "and the pi shalt be 3, not 3.1 or 2.9, but 3."

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Obfuscant]

You'd be surprised how many people believe evolution is about making less complex organisms into more complex ones, or making the next generation "better" in some objective way than the current one.

Ummm, the latter is exactly what evolution is. Mutations occur, the resulting changes are either propogated because they provide some objective benefit, removed from the system because they are detrimental, or become part of the background noise of genetic variation if they are neither harmful nor beneficial.

Mutations are not, by themselves, evolution. There needs to be some reason for the mututation to reproduce. From the all-encompassing unimpeachable source of all human knowledge:

Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to differential rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.[3] Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents that were better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection took place. This process creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.[4] Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.[5]

In the early 20th century, genetics was integrated with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection through the discipline of population genetics. The importance of natural selection as a cause of evolution was accepted into other branches of biology. Moreover, previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress" became obsolete.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[ugmoe]

I did not mention God - did you mean to reply to a different post?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[almechist]

Maybe if we evolve into the Q we'll finally understand it all, but that's definitely not the case now.

Uh, if we evolve into the Q it will be pretty clear that evolution exists. I mean, one can't evolve in the absence of evolution, can one? So if we evolve into the Q, we may or may not understand every last little detail about the evolutionary process, but I think intelligent design will be pretty much disproved!

Yes indeedy, I suspect the best way to make ID disappear is to evolve beyond it. Sadly, even then there will probably be a few reality-denying fundamentalist throwbacks.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Altrag]

Uhh no. A few things:

This allows people to attempt to disprove it until accepted.

FTFY.

So, things that we take as fact "sun is center of our galaxy", "earth is round", is now a proven theory. But in essence, still a theory.

Assuming you mean solar system rather than galaxy as pointed out by another poster, this is still wrong. "Earth is round" is a description of observable facts, not a theory. Any more than its a theory to say "a soccer ball is round." It may not be perfectly spherical, but it is round. Not "it might be round" or "I think its round due to measuring its circumference and diameter and applying pi." Its round because we define round to be that shape.

Similarly the sun is the center of the solar system because well.. that's what center means. It might have still been a theory in the 16th century when they only had the math to work from, but nowadays we have spacecraft and satellites and crap floating around up there which have reduced this from a theory to simple observation.

On the other hand, [i]WHY[/i] the sun is at the center of the solar system, why Kepler's laws are true, why the earth is almost but not quite spherical -- the why's are definitely in the realm of theory, but the actual observations are merely facts.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[readin]

A better way to offend neither side would be as my eighth grade teacher did. He told us we would be studying the theory of evolution and that we didn't have to agree with it but to be educated people in the modern world we had to know and understand it. So he presented the evidence and the theory. The test questions I remember started with "According to the theory of evolution...".

For those who disagree with the theory, they weren't being forced to lie about their beliefs in order to pass a test and they weren't being offended.

For those who believe the theory of evolution is obviously true based on the evidence and the logic, the evidence and logic were presented so there was no need to add any argument by authority of the teacher (which is anyway a fallacious argument to good scientific circles).

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Oswald McWeany]

I didn't go into details- because it is just one of many. It is one of the more common things people mention about how the KJV is not true to the original translations. If you look in a non KJV you will see something like this:

(2 Sam. 21:19)- "And there was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam."

Source: The bible.

Non KJV bibles list two people as having killed Goliath. KJV's authors didn't like that contradiction so they arbitrarily changed the words to say this instead:

And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam

Source: KJV

No old texts of the bible or any other source indicate the words "brother of"- that is a pure fabrication of the KJV.

There are many changes like this- where the authors of the KJV didn't like what the original source said- so they changed it.

That's what makes fundamentalists using the "KJV" as "God's Word Verbatim" so rediculous.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[turbidostato]

"The problem is that the word "theory" has different meanings to Scientists and Layperson."

I don't think so. To the layman a "theory" is a vision of reality (i.e. "I have the theory that this guy is here only for the money") that makes him produce some useful predictions ("...therefore I bet that he will try to push for an aggresive marketing campaign instead of waiting for the product to be ready").

The facts test the theory . As long as the predictions induced by the theory get real, the theory becomes stronger; if the facts go against the theory, this one is modified or abandoned altogether.

Well, that's exactly how science theories work, the only difference being (that's the hope) that science is a tad more rigurose at testing facts -past, present and future, against the theory than a layman about his own theories.

"The Theory of Evolution as it stands today might never reach the status of "Law""

Of course not, since the theory of (darwinian) evolution is, well, a theory, not a law. Can we, please, please, please, abandon the naive idea that a "law" is a kind of "stronger theory" or "a theory that proved itself to be right"?

A law is a precise representation (usually in a mathematical way) of the relationship of some magnitudes. Theory is a knowledge framework that bias our representation of reality. As such it usually includes some laws but it is neither a must nor the laws need to be unique or specific to any single law (so much when the law in question is plainly evident).

In example: Kepler proposed the law that planetary orbits were eliptical with the orbiting body "swapping" equal areas in equal time. It is known, not too imaginatively, as "Second Kepler Law of planetary motion" (the other two being "planets orbit around the Sun as an ellipse with the Sun in one of their foci" and "the square of the orbital period is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of the orbital ellipse").

It was a law that, published by 1609, after studying Tycho Brahe's data was not endorsed by any known theory of that time, it was a law without a theory.

After that, by 1687, Newton proposed the theory that all bodies had a property that made them attract each other and it happened that Kepler's laws fitted wonderfully within that theory.

The only reason for Kepler's laws not being widely known is because Newton's theory proposed another law (bodies attract each other with a strengh which is proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their distance) that happens to be a general law of which Kepler's are just a derivative special case.

Please pay attention that it is widely known that both Newton's Theory and his attraction Law are WRONG! but being right or wrong is not what makes a theory a theory nor a law a law.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[cyberchondriac]

Nope.
In fact, I was going to search an online version of the Old Testament for "Bantha" and see what came up.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget we should be teaching biblical Pi instead of heathen devil math.

"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26

Clearly Pi = 3

Sinners.

Yep, that's one of my favorite bible-giggles. Because it clearly states that Pi is 3.0 and not 3.1 even if it's just presumed to be an approximation. Those who claim the old testament of the bible is literally true tend to wriggle quite amusingly when that one comes up.

You think you are so smart with this. haha

I'll give you a clue....outside diameter

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[tgibbs]

I'm a scientist, and there are many things about science that I believe, in the same sense that I may say, "I believe that it is going to rain today." Often, my beliefs turn out to be mistaken. That's fine--I can make new ones. As far as I'm concerned, it is OK for a scientist to have beliefs. What is not OK is to get too attached to them, and to cling to them in the face of contrary evidence.

In other words "belief" = "current best guess"

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[GerryGilmore]

Haven't you ever heard the old joke about how all the math and science teachers in Tennessee have the same first name? It's "Coach".

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[cpu6502]

My phone is not net-capable but yes, I could mod myself by carrying my laptop to work and using 28k dialup through the phone to get a 2nd IP address. Then 10 minutes later of slow connection..... +1 myself. But why? It isn't worth the hassle (or risk of firing).

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[UnknowingFool]

Technically, Newton's version of gravity wasn't wrong but rather limited. Einstein showed that it works well for situations of relatively low mass and speed. However, Einstein's general theory of relativity works covers these situations and high mass or speed.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[RussR42]

I can't decide if you're trolling or actually believe the nonsense you spout in about half a dozen comments in this thread. 30 seconds with google found a neat summary of the situation.

The constitution of these United States in incompatible with the US becoming a christian nation

FTFY

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[KiloByte]

Strictly speaking, the center is outside the Sun, around half its radius above the surface, pointing roughly in Jove's way.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[turbidostato]

"So, you're saying [...] I should come up with exactly pi?"

No, I'm saying exactly the opposite.

"Sorry, your idea is so unreal..."

No. It is *your* idea about what you *think* it is my idea what is unreal. Hint: go to a dictionary and look for the "exist" verb. Then, go to a phylosophy dictionary and dig in concepts like "necessity", "contingency" and the difference between being and existing.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[blahplusplus]

"I am still stunned that people think this way..."

Don't be. Human reasoning doesn't work the way the enlightenment thought.

http://bit.ly/dYaWUc

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[davidannis]

I beg to differ: http://teachthecontroversy.com/ Even Gallileo recanted.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[smaddox]

Notice that I said faith and not religion. I am not a fan of organized religion by any means. Neither is my Savior.

If you want to talk about children being killed, you should consider what "religious fanatics" fight against every day. Over 54 million children killed legally under US law since the 60s, in the name of choice.

Children or fetuses? Is a fetus not part of a woman's body? Could you really consider a fetus a human being prior to the moment it is capable of living outside of a woman's womb? There is certainly the possibility of a fetus becoming a child, but there are many ways in which it might not. Should we simply make it illegal for a fetus to be terminated through deliberate action? What about irresponsible action, such as alcoholism? What about deliberate inaction, such as starving oneself? Where do you draw the line? Or should we maybe stick with the current clear definition of homicide (the killing of a human being)?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[zlives]

lol, there goes my card.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Uberbah]

That's quite the word salad to dodge a simple point: that the Bible lays out Pi in a clear cut (but false) fashion that presents a bit of a problem for those who insist that the book is the Literal Gospel Truth.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Empiric]

Okay, yes, I already know more about all the philosophy terms you've mentioned than you do.

But let's back up. Are you saying the bible should, or should not, have expressed this measurement of a circle-like, real-world object, as being pi?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Lord Maud'Dib]

Fremen came to mind for me. The blue within blue eyes...

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[operagost]

Well, there's your problem, right there. The overall concept of evolution is no longer a theory. Surely even the staunchest of Creationists must acknowledge the so called "short-term" evolution that gives us the ability to manipulate plants or breed wolves into dogs.

Do we just mod up anything that's anti-creationist here? Those aren't evolution by definition because they are-- sorry-- evidence of intelligent design by humans.

You may wish to bring up natural selection instead, but that would still be a straw man as few deny its existence; it is easier to grasp, more easily observable, and doesn't conflict with Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[operagost]

You (not you, they) believe in the bible and Jesus and invisible friends in the sky, great. That in no way interferes with the proven fact that organisms evolve based on their surroundings.

That's not evolution (or to clarify, "macroevolution"). That's natural selection, which I have often stated is not denied except by the truly obstinate.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Eightbitgnosis]

Just because they call it a "scientific theory" does not mean it's some flimsy thought process. Our understanding of gravity is called the theory of gravity, but even though everyone knows it; it's still called a theory

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Eightbitgnosis]

Well they're both destined to return and destroy the earth.....

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[tomkost]

The word theory has many definitions (six in the merriam webster online). The most relevant definition in the context of "theory of evolution" is: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another. Theory does not always mean "something we think is true, but still have a few doubts". The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[AK Marc]

Calling it a law of gravity implies that we understand it to the smallest detail and can explain how it works in detail.

Calling it a law means it is "true" to the best of our ability to determine truth. We don't have to have a proof of 1+1=2 to know it's true. The detail is left for the philosophers, the validity is what determines the Law.

And yes, you are right in that people have found edge cases in which gravity appears to fail, but those specific ones pointed out I've seen could be because of confounds (strong, weak, or other forces that weren't accounted for) or limitations in our ability to test and measure at the scales required.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[hacksoncode]

It's mostly used as a counterargument to the apologist claim that the bible contains math secrets that weren't known when it was written (which is absurd on the face of it, in both directions, of course).

However, that said, just to play the Devil's Advocate (seeing as how the devil is the most likely character in the Bible story to have inspired its writers to create such a libelous depiction of the main character)...

An even better guess than crude "rounding" is that it already says the right thing if you read it correctly. 10 cubits from from "brim to brim" might easily mean the outside diameter of the container, and the circumference may reasonably be considered to be encompassing the *sea* contained therein (i.e. the inside circumference).

As the thickness is a "handsbreadth", which in Egyptian measure was ~.2 cubits. Twice that is .4 cubits, so the diameter of the encompassed sea would be 9.6 cubits, which, when multiplied by pi implies a circumference of 30.16 cubits. This is well within any reasonable margin of error.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[operagost]

Its amazing that she could get a degree in biology without "believing" in evolution. It's a bit like a physicist that doesn't believe in gravity.

No, it's not. Gravity is readily observable. It's a little different, although admittedly still surprising.

Next biology topic: Locusts only have four legs!

Next English topic: reading comprehension. "Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth." Locusts primarily walk only with the two anterior pairs of legs, and hop with the posterior pair.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[AliasMarlowe]

If you allow for some measurement error:

I'm aware of the measurement limitations in and before the early iron age, and understand your point on consequent inaccuracy or imprecision (which is quite plausible).

The real giggle is from those who claim that biblical text is error-free, and that thus the 10 and 30 are accurate and correct. They then start arguing that the 10 cubits is the diameter of the outside of the rim, but the circumference is for the inside of the rim and other squirming attempts to get 3.0 for the ratio between them, ignoring the fact that this amounts to inserting additional unstated conditions or assumptions independent of the text. You see, any admission of error or inaccuracy would undermine all the other arguments they derive from other bits of the bible written on topics on which the authors were understandably ignorant. Curiously, they see nothing wrong in interposing additional unstated parameters, despite also asserting that the bible is complete (caution: believers may become somewhat irate and even less rational when this is pointed out).

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Empiric]

So, it can not ever be calculated absolutely, even when dealing with a mathematically-ideal, rather than real-world, "circle", but the bible should have stated it as calculated absolutely, otherwise it's wrong?

I'm just trying to convey basic mathematical principles, as applied to real-world objects here, not even getting into the incredible hypocrisy of setting your expectations at what you already know, and directly say yourself, would be impossible to put down in text with a precision that wouldn't make it "wrong". Can we at least agree on the first part here?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[operagost]

Are they measuring the inside or the outside of the bowl? It's a hand breadth thick. How thick is that?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[operagost]

It also says the state may not prohibit the free exercise thereof... which is what I have to remind all the intolerant atheists when they demand that faith be sequestered behind closed doors.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[IICV]

Yours is not even close to a reasonable argument, it is down there with arguments made by creationists and intelligent design advocates.

I hope you realize that this is kind of the point - by saying "the Bible must be taken literally, so we can't accept evolution", the IDists and Creationists are also implicitly saying "we must teach that pi is exactly 3". It's not even close to a reasonable argument, but somehow laws are passed based on those unreasonable arguments. as soon as you allow for some leeway like "maybe they didn't mean seven literal days" or "they rounded the values", the argument falls apart.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[MightyMartian]

It's a good thing there is over two centuries of jurisprudence surrounding the First Amendment, so the court already has a lot of case history to go by, and Jefferson's wall of separation, so heavily implied in the text of the First Amendment, is how the Supreme Court interprets it. And since there's no mistaking that ultimately it is the Supreme Court that tests constitutionality, I'm not sure why anyone thinks there is a problem.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[operagost]

Most of them were not deists. Franklin was the closest of the major players. Jefferson was a bit of a skeptic, but identified with Christians. Washington, Madison, Adams, Hamilton, Jay-- all men of faith.

Religious services were once held in the Capitol.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[operagost]

Cool! Just like Denmark, the most notorious theocracy in the world!

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[HeckRuler]

we "do not observe evolution on the scale that is relevant to the discussion".

And that is balls to the walls wrong. "Evolutionary aspects" happening to "some insects" is entirely relevant to the discussion of whether or not evolution is fact. Deal with it.

Evolution (specifically as it pertains to the origin of Man)

The origins of man is only a subset of evolution (and a ground shattering book). Something that can be derived from larger over-arcing subject knowledge. The fact of evolution is observable in complex lifeforms. Furthermore, there's no good reason to believe that it isn't applicable to the animals we call human. That part is a theory. It's a good theory, but it won't ever be able to be a fact since it's a historical event. It could very well be that aliens copied some primates, tweaked them, and plopped us down into a wondrous garden. That's a theory too, and a shitty one.

Calling something a theory is not an insult, so there's no reason to get up in arms about it.

Correct, calling it a theory is not an insult. I am not up in arms about that statement. I am absolutely ragingly all-up-in-your-stuff-with-arms insulted that you claim that evolution is not a fact. It is. You're wrong. Provably wrong. So wrong that I don't want you anywhere near my children sort of wrong. So twistedly wrong in such a way where you make a serious effort to drive any wedge you can between the truth and anyone who will listen that I don't think I'm too far out of line in calling you evil.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Hatta]

You cannot substitute your fantasy world for reality and continue to be a "good person".

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Beat The Odds]

Don't forget we should be teaching biblical Pi instead of heathen devil math.

"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26

Clearly Pi = 3 Sinners.

Why don't you tell me the EXACT value of Pi.... smart guy!

3 is a perfectly good approximation if you don't need high accuracy.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[operagost]

Yeah, I don't see any reason we should believe a few lines that dozens of brilliant men argued over and compromised on for weeks over a terse interpretive statement one founding father made in a single letter to a single Baptist congregation. Jefferson wins! After all, he also recommended that when we take a walk, we should carry a gun (presumably to shoot at things) as good exercise! A clear endorsement of an unlimited interpretation of the second amendment! "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." I mean, we hear leftists quoting that one all the time, don't we?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[operagost]

The government does use tax money for that purpose though since they give exemption from tax to religious organizations (in the US that means primarily churches). Exempting someones business activities from taxation is equivalent to giving them whatever their taxes owing should have been as a subsidy.

No, it's not, as the money we earn is our money. Letting people keep their own money does not mean the government is giving them money. That's collectivism.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Empiric]

No, it says three. This is, per how significant digits works, specifying a value between 3.0 and 3.49 (...999999...).

Nowhere does it say "3.0", and if it did say "3.1", you'd just assert that's wrong, it should have said "3.14". And if it said that, no, it's 3.141... ad infinitum.

Nice touch adding the direct lie about the bible's content to the standard absurd hypocrisy of this parroted claim, though.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the parent was objecting to the conflation of "better suited to survive and reproduce in the current environment" with "better in some general, abstract, or moral way, independent of environment."

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[pseudofengshui]

This isn't about the facts.

I mean the creationist counter argument is that it contradicts a bunch of fairy tales written thousands of years ago by sand people.

You aren't going to be able to get the idea of evolution through that brainwashed blank stare they throw up when you start talking about science.

Am I the only person who read "sand people" and immediately thought of the deserts of Tatooine *hoooooooark hoark hoark*?

Nope. It makes sense when you think about it. The earth had bigger oceans long ago and the Sand People lived in the Dune Sea.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[narcc]

Maybe should they should redefine "theory" from "educated guess" to "presumptive truth?"

Because "presumptive truth" just as wrong as "guess" -- a theory in the scientific sense is a predictive model. From that model, predictions can be made (hypotheses) that can be supported or not supported by the data.

A theory can be completely and totally wrong (in that the predictions it makes are not supported by the data) and still be a theory in the scientific sense.

Further, the process of science can not, by its very nature, lead to truth. To call a scientific theory a "presumptive truth" goes against the very philosophical and metaphysical principles which are the very foundation of the scientific enterprise. It's as anti-science a statement as you could make.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[martas]

Wouldn't it then be somewhat appropriate to call the fact that evolution occurs a law? We know that organisms evolve pretty much as well as we know that things fall. Now, explanations of evolution such as natural selection and random mutations are certainly part of a theory, but the simple observation that evolution has, and continues to, occur is much more akin to a law in that sense, no?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[narcc]

science has always touted the fact that everything it discovers as theory.

Wow, total scientific literacy failure.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[martas]

You know what, if someone is willing to go through so much trouble for a fucking +1 Insightful, I say let him have it, he earned it...

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[LordLimecat]

Its been a long while since ive been in 1/2 Samuel, but from reading the context it appears that this is happening after Saul is dead and David is king, and that there was yet another battle with the Philistines with yet another person named Goliath. And actually, the first few "supposing"s are directly supported by the text (hence the "war again", and a verse or so back mention of David as king).

Is there any reason that a Philistine possibly related to Goliath might not have been given the name of Goliath and ended up being large like his relative? Or is there any particular reason that some new champion of the Philistines might not have been given the "title" or nickname of Goliath?

The word "brother" was not in the original hebrew, incidentally, and Im not aware of evangelicals statistically prefering the KJV. I understand that to be the stereotype, but I have not seen it myself (ESV and NIV seem to be far more common in the churches Ive seen); and as an evangelical I could list a few reasons why the KJV is a less-than-ideal translation to be using.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Chris Burke]

That's not evolution (or to clarify, "macroevolution"). That's natural selection, which I have often stated is not denied except by the truly obstinate.

I'm glad your clarified from something that is unequivocally wrong -- a single species undergoing changes in allele frequency is indeed evolution -- to a mere red herring.

Okay, so if what you'd call "microevolution" is something not denied except by the truly obstinate, and you are not such, then let me show you why you also should not deny "macroevolution".

You have a species. It can undergo "microevolution". This species is by twist of fate split into two separate populations that are unable to interbreed due to for example geographical barriers. Each of these two populations undergo their own "microevolution", but since they do not interbreed the changes are not shared with the other population. Over time, these two populations would diverge to the point where were they to be brought back together they would be incapable of interbreeding. They are now different species.

That's "macroevolution", done with nothing but the mechanism of "microevolution" which of course you're not so obstinate as to deny. But you can't deny one without denying the other, because they're the same thing. You're trying to drive a wedge into a gap that doesn't exist.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[narcc]

One definition of the word theory is: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.

Nice try. A shame that you're totally wrong. A theory can be totally wrong, commonly regarded as wrong, be completely untested, and still be a theory in the scientific sense. While not meeting all of my negative criteria, phlogiston theory is a fine example of a theory in the scientific sense that is no longer commonly accepted. The theory was abandoned when the predictions that it made were no longer supported by the data. Yet, it's still a scientific theory.

I think this whole thing comes down to a lot of people not understanding this definition of the word "theory."

You would be among them.

Try this one: "A theory is a predictive model"

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not evolution (or to clarify, "macroevolution"). That's natural selection

I...what? Ow! My brain! You broke my brain with the stupid!

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Daniel Dvorkin]

That in no way interferes with the proven fact that organisms evolve based on their surroundings.

That's not evolution (or to clarify, "macroevolution"). That's natural selection, which I have often stated is not denied except by the truly obstinate.

Populations of organisms change to fit their environment -- or as we scientists say, "evolve" -- through a combination of two mechanisms: mutation, which makes the changes possible, and natural selection, which rewards those changes which are useful in the environment and punishes those which are deleterious. These changes tend to be very small and subtle, but small changes over time add up to big changes. That's pretty much it.

The "truly obstinate" continue to draw a line between natural selection and evolution, where no such line exists. They also pretend that "macroevolution" is a meaningful word, when it isn't.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Chris Burke]

You cannot substitute your fantasy world for reality and continue to be a "good person".

Well in my fantasy world you can, so there!

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[geekoid]

No. ON some things there is no compromise. specifically facts.

You can't teach invisible fairies pull things to the earth to explain gravity. You teach the theory of gravity.

This is LITERALLY the same thing. Evolution is a fact. Evolutionary theory explains that facts.

If you needed 10 feet of pipe, and the delivery guy gave you 8 feet, would you compromise at 9 feet? Of course not, because it doesn't do the job.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[narcc]

creationists want to define the term as an educated guess, whereas scientists define it as an explanation that has been supported by extensive facts and observations

And those scientists would be totally wrong. (It's not your fault -- I blame the ACA for putting that nonsense definition in your head.)

Here's the sound bite version: A theory is a predictive model. An hypothesis is a testable prediction.

Theories make predictions that are then tested. A hypothesis can be supported or not supported by the data. If a theory makes lots of predictions that are supported by the data, we say that the theory is good. If it makes lots of predictions that are not supported by the data, we say that the theory is poor/inadequate/etc.

A theory can be "wrong" and still be a theory in the scientific sense.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[pesho]

Ummm, the latter is exactly what evolution is. Mutations occur, the resulting changes are either propogated because they provide some objective benefit, removed from the system because they are detrimental, or become part of the background noise of genetic variation if they are neither harmful nor beneficial.

Ummm, I think the parent has it better than you. Evolution is about creating 'different' rather than 'objectively improved' organisms. A mutation can be fixed in the population not only trough natural selection, but also through genetic drift. So genetic variations that are neither harmful nor beneficial (aka neutral) can become the predominant genotype and not just 'noise'. In fact genetic drift will fix even 'objectively' disadvantageous mutations as long as they are not under strong negative selection (high cholesterol at later stages of life anyone?). Beside the separation of 'good' and 'bad' mutations is not clear cut, because it depends on the environment in which the organism lives. And as we know environments have the pesky tendency to change. Are mutations that give you sickle cell anemia good or bad? The answer is: depends on where you live. If you live in a place with endemic malaria, having a mutated copy of the beta-globin gene may come handy.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Nidi62]

Exactly. A friend of mine went to high school in Georgia. The biology teacher was legally required to teach evolution. Here's how she taught it.

"Today, I'm legally required to teach evolution. We all believe in Jesus, right? OK, next topic."

I doubt the Tenesee law will change much in the classroom, merely decriminalize common behavior.

Guess what. I did go to high school in Georgia. My school district made national news when they put stickers in the front of biology textbooks saying that it was just a theory, and all that. WE all laughed and thought it was a joke, no one took it seriously. We still spent a week or two on evolution, and the topic of creationism and intelligent design never came up. Hell, one of my friends in the class's father is a major Baptist minister here and is currently the head of the Southern Baptist Convention, and my friend never brought it up. As far as I could tell he believed in evolution. If you think what happened in your example is common behavior, you are sorely mistaken. Just because we all like our guns, trucks and confederate flags doesn't mean we're all idiots incapable of rational thought or bring religion into everything.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[geekoid]

macro-evolution is micro-evolution over a long period of time.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[fullmetal55]

Never said it belonged in a science classroom, nor called it science, In fact I don't think I mentioned a specific class in my post. That doesn't mean it doesn't belong in a Social Studies, History, or Religion class however. Science and Social studies are two separate subjects dealing with separate ideas. Doesn't change my point at all either. When I was in school, things were taught in a very poor way, everything was stated as a "fact", "these are scientific facts". No room to challenge any thought. This is not the best way to discover things. Some of those facts have been disproven scientifically. I've learned to remain open minded. To challenge ideas. It's this challenging that in fact can both disprove and prove theories and ideas. Discussing controversy in a classroom, can be used for good or bad. It can be used to reveal other positions. as well as other positions weaknesses, including the predominant theories weaknesses. Your knee-jerk reaction to my post is exactly the point I was trying to make about the arguments. Thank you for being a perfect example. I never defended creationism or creationists. Yet you attacked me for not attacking them. This knee-jerk reaction from both sides of the debate is why no progress can be made in this. Evolutionists are "RIGHT DAMNIT!" and creationists are "RIGHT DAMNIT" there's no room for discussion. to put your statements into my initial example would be "It doesn't matter who won the face off, since we scored 3 goals off of lost faceoffs. Faceoffs aren't goals"

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[geekoid]

man, I wish I could do that here. I would love to move into teaching science.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Gravity is readily observable.

No it's not. What's readily observable is that things fall, and for the slightly more sophisticated, that celestial bodies move as they do. There were a host of attempts at explaining both of these phenomena before the concept of gravity as such was developed. Once a rigorous theory of gravity was presented, almost everyone realized that it did a much better job of explaining the observations than had any previous explanation. Just as readily observable is the fact that living beings are very diverse, but have a surprising amount in common with each other despite this diversity; again, there were many explanations offered for this before evolution came along and displaced previous explanations, in much the same fashion.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[narcc]

There is nothing beyond theories in science, it's the highest level a piece of scientific thinking can achieve.

No. Not even remotely close.

Where did you get this ridiculous idea of a hierarchy from anyway?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Anonymous Coward]

Genetic drift is part of evolution and doesn't necessarily provide any sort of advantage. Natural Selection is what you're thinking of, and it's one of the evolution mechanisms.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[narcc]

it is a tested explanation of observations

This is driving me absolutely insane. No, that is not what a theory is! Hell, you can't even test a theory, only the predictions that it makes!

I've posted this a couple times already, a simple short set of definitions that you can use: A theory is a predictive model. An hypothesis is a testable prediction.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[bane2571]

The same theories that hold how evolutions functions can be applied to deterministic breeding of animals. Given that it's not a monumental leap backwards to say the same thing - Could - have happened to humanity.

Not saying that it did, just that it is possible and regardless, in order to actually teach intelligent design as a scientific concept you need to highlight evolution is the tool that must by all available evidence have been used to accomplish that design.

Just saying "God made humanity exactly as you are" is easily disprovable even over the last millenia.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Fned]

No, it says three.

No, it doesn't. It gives a very specific ratio of 30:10, which is two significant digits (identical to 3.0:1.0)

This lesson brought to you by decimal places, which you SHOULDA OUGHTA LEARNT IN GRADE SCHOOL.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Confusedent]

Meh, I grew up in an urban area of Tennessee and creationism was never taught in any classroom I was in, just evolution. Albeit I'm pretty much certain it's not the same in the rural areas. We still have active KKK down here, and the rural towns off the major interstates are pretty much 50 years behind the rest of the US.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[geekoid]

It doesn't belong in public spaces.

Like masturbation, religion is best when kept to yourself. People start assuming their religion can be in every public thing, people get killed.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[geekoid]

If you took some time to understand the context of the time, it is what they meant. They only people who can possible think otherwise are ignorant or want to shove their fairy tale down everyone's throat.

Read the damn letters.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Fned]

Measure it yourself! A cubit is one forearm. Put your hand on your forearm with the edge of your hand against your wrist, and then again where the edge of your thumb was. Should be close to ~2 hands-breadths per cubit.

So, the vessel was 20 hands-breadths across on the inside, which is how you'd bother to measure it if you wanted to know what could fit inside it, and 30 around the outside edge, which is just about the only way you could measure it with a string prior to the invention of masking tape, making the diameter at the outside 21 hands-breadths, which gives us a Biblical value for Pi at: 2.857. Erm.

Okay, so maybe they measured the circumference INSIDE and the rim-to-rim OUTSIDE, which is batshit insane but yields a much more believable 3.157.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[geekoid]

It's not one line to one baptists minister. It's mentioned several times by different authors..but you would rather just listen to some guy who believe in fairy tales then do any damn research; which is fine, but keep it the FUCK out of
public space, and away from people who actually know what the fuck they are talking about.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[geekoid]

That can be the case, but years latter language has changes and you meaning is no longer clear. as an example, see the Constitution.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[wisnoskij]

What are you talking about?
The next generation is on average objectively better at surviving in their current environment.
And at least in specific cases you can say that it is building towards a specific goal (other then simple to be better at surviving and reproducing).
While some animals do not have one huge threat and evolution is not very directed is many circumstances the sole element to survival is really a single variable (for example, how much does a bug look like a leaf) and the result is a very precise result.

"deterministic fashion"
I do not think science has proven that true randomness exists (not really sure about the atom scale world) but I am pretty confident that science does not leave any reason to believe that anything that happens in the human scaled universe is not 100% complete deterministic.

It is suggesting that some magic non-deterministic thing happens and boom there is evolution that is unscientific. Evolution is not that complex or magical, and rather simple, and you can go step by step through it, make predictions, and in a simple enough environment know the goal that evolution will reach.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[geekoid]

No, they get exempt from taxes, and THAT is special privilege.

frankly, remove tax deductions for all non profits, and make churches pay taxes. ANything else is special privlidge.

I get taxed more because I don't belong to a religion.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Empiric]

Ah, "30", and "10", without a trailing decimal, are both -one- significant digit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures

There you go, enjoy. Grade school, if you insist.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[euroq]

Although I'm glad you are skeptical about the way the universe works and are correct to point out that science, by its fundamental process, is constantly proving old accepted science wrong, you're unfortunately very wrong about what a Scientific Theory is. And unfortunately you're wrong in the way that Creationists try to demean science.

A Scientific Theory is not a guess in the way that a detective has a theory on what happened. The Theory of Gravity is not speculation. The statement,

In science ALL things are theories, because we will never have a complete understanding....

is utterly incorrect. Most "things" are facts, not scientific theories. A plethora of facts and data points comprise a scientific theory. Furthermore,

...and the theories are eventually proven wrong

is also, well, untruthy :). Facts are proven wrong; theories aren't facts. Nuances of theories change. I am not away of any scientific theory that has ever just been completely thrown out the window. When new science and data about gravity comes along that disproves old science and data, one wouldn't say that the Theory of Gravity was wrong all along.

The reason this misunderstanding is dangerous is because Creationists like to use the misguided argument, "Evolution is just a theory." In Georgia we almost were forced to put this sticker on all biology books in the state. It's total ignorance of what Scientific Theories are. They should have added "Gravity is just a theory" to complete their perverse understanding of science.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[geekoid]

read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

then send it to that knuckle head of a professor.

You don't seem to understand the difference between theory and law..and probably hypothesis.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[geekoid]

except the layperson makes up theories with nothing to support them. i.e. a guess.

" Newton's Theory and his attraction Law are WRONG! "
no they aren't.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[geekoid]

hahaha.. are you seriously saying that provable facts will change a belief?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[geekoid]

it is a skill, one you should learn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

Evolution is a fact. There is a testable theory, and warehouses full of evidence.
The theory of evolution explains that fact.

There is no evidence of a 'God' or 'creator'. none, zip, zilch.
As such, there is no theory. So, no, it should be taught in science because it isn't science.

Another example:

Evolution is a fact: the theory of evolution explains that fact.

Germs are a fact: germ theory explains that fact.
Teach creationism in science is the same as teaching magic invisible fairy spread disease,.

Gravity is a fact: Gravitational theory is how we explain that fact. Would you seriously allow some to tech that the reason things fall to the ground is because magic fairies pull them down? That would be exactly the same as teaching creationism.
since I suspect you don't know what a fact is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Dutchmaan]

What kind of fucked up world are we living in where people actually try to pass off science as a religion and try to pass off religion as science. Where people dismiss scientific theories out of hand yet try and create "scientific formula's" about the second coming of Christ based on snippets from a 2000 year old text which has been added to and subtracted from and translated and retranslated and had it's simplest of meanings hotly debated by various groups for two millennia. You know the actual "translation" of texts would be a science, but the meanings are so beyond the scope of science that it's folly to even try. Faith.. is not, nor has it been, nor will it EVER be a matter of science.

If one's faith in God is so flimsy that belief can be threatened by scientific theory, then you are on the wrong path... Part of what God represents is *truth* and the pursuit of the *truth* of all things is the pursuit of God.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[WastedMeat]

Because natural selection chose attributes that increased the chances of survival.

You should be especially careful to avoid anthropomorphizing the physical processes in these sorts of discussions.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Obfuscant]

Evolution is about creating 'different' rather than 'objectively improved' organisms.

No. Mutation is about creating "different". Evolution is about the long-term changes that result from the short-term changes. Natural selection and mutation are not mutually exclusive concepts. The latter is the reason why natural selection can happen.

In fact genetic drift will fix even 'objectively' disadvantageous mutations as long as they are not under strong negative selection (high cholesterol at later stages of life anyone?).

This is an example of human modification to the normal process of natural selection. High cholesterol is a disadvantageous mutuation that has survived for two reasons. First, if it occurs late in life, then reproduction of that mutation has already taken place. If it occurs early in life, then medical treatment will prevent the death that would have precluded reproduction. If the gene survives in the early onset years, then it will be more likely to appear in the late onset version, so that also explains why late onset high cholesterol is becoming more common. We, as compassionate human beings, have worked to remove the "better" and "worse" from the process, thus distorting natural selection. That doesn't mean there is no better or worse, just that we're letting people reproduce who normally would not have.

That is, I fear, an unanticipated consequence of mitigating the fatal nature of many genetically-carried medical conditions of youth. We will see more and more cases as more and more of the victims produce offspring with the same genes.

Beside the separation of 'good' and 'bad' mutations is not clear cut, because it depends on the environment in which the organism lives.

That's called "natural selection". Of course the environment in which a mutation appears is included in determining "good" vs. "bad". But that means there is "better", which is what was denied by the OP. Not every bird on the planet developed the same beak adaptations that Darwin noticed in his travels, but his explanation of why it happened to the species it did is clearly based on it being a better style of beak, for those birds, on that island, in that environment. That shows clearly that "better" is heavily dependent upon environment.

If you live in a place with endemic malaria, having a mutated copy of the beta-globin gene may come handy.

That's why sickle cell anemia, as a mutation, survived. It gave the recipient a better chance to survive in his environment. That means there is a "better" as a result of that mutation, even if is it not "better" in another environment.

My point was that there is, indeed, a concept of "better" and "worse" intimately involved with evolution. You would not say that an offspring that shows a mutation had "evolved", you'd say he had a mutation. You would say that there was evolution of the species when multiple generations down the line the mutation had propogated to the point that it was a major property of the species.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Thiez]

> Get a family of fruit flies. Put them in complete darkness -- no light, but feed them everything they need.

So where exactly is the selective pressure? The fruit flies have everything they need: they are not being selected for not having eyes, so there is no reason at all to expect their eyes to disappear.

> 90% of what we believe about evolution is incorrect

No, 90% of what YOU believe about evolution is incorrect.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[tibit]

Oh boy, the misunderstanding of scientific theory, yet again. Theories, in the sense of scientific theories, are the ultimate output of the scientific method. Something is not merely a theory, being a theory is the ultimate status for a body of knowledge! A scientific theory is an explanation of facts: it must make predictions that match facts observed so far, and it must also make predictions that have not necessarily been observed yet, but will eventually be observed to agree with it. Something is not merely a theory, you must first elevate it to a rank of theory by doing a whole lot of work first.

So, saying that evolution is no longer a theory would mean opposite of what you imply: a dethronization, pushing off the books, etc. Evolution is a very strong scientific theory, heck, it's a theory that along with a modern Earth's geological theory has, for example, led directly to finding fish with front legs in an IIRC 350 million year old exposed barren land somewhere hard-to-get-to. It has had a whole bunch of triumphs like that, triumphs that strongly support not only evolution but the modern geology too -- triumphs that trump young Earth creationism, for example.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[tibit]

The problem with belief in Jesus (and related beliefs) is that those are not theories. They make no testable, and thus useful, predictions, none at all (let's spare the afterlife bit, mmkay?). Evolution and modern geology make predictions, ahead of time, that have been subsequently tested many times over. A belief in a deity is entirely orthogonal to acceptance of any scientific theory.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[MightyMartian]

I think the meaning is very clear. It's just that certain groups don't like the meaning, so try to play games with the language to make it mean something less than they and everyone else knows the intent to be.

But boy, try the same thing with their precious Bible, and see the feathers fly.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[tibit]

Agreed. Circle is a concept -- it's a bunch of rules that tell you if something is a circle. Talking about its "existence" is some kind of brain damage...

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[MightyMartian]

Jefferson is the one who came up with the description "wall of separation". Madison, who likely actually wrote the First Amendment, also made clear what the intent was:

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.

- Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731

The Founding Fathers made no secret of the purpose of the Establishment Clause, and SCOTUS has had a sure guide. It is pure bullshit to say that the Establishment Clause is not clear and that the Framers were somehow sitting on a fence. They wanted to make sure that no man in the United States of America would ever be subjected to the kinds of abuses that had been seen in England, and from time to time even in the Colonies. This wasn't some wishy-washy generic kinda-sorta-shouldn't-promote-religion thing, this was men like Madison and Jefferson making clear what the Establishment Clause was to mean.

So putting stickers on biology books, requiring teachers to claim scientific controversy where there is none, trying to pass of Intelligent Design as something other than Creationism, or in general any of the tricks used by the Creationist movement to use the classroom as a tool to proselytize to children violate that wall of separation, and the Founding Fathers make clear that the government is not, in Madison's own words to establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[purplebear]

Human life starts at conception. Science has proven that repeatedly. Aside from that, a heartbeat is detectable 18 days post conception. So yes, they were children.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Carewolf]

You are both right and wrong, but you are only stupid.

Laws are early science terms. If you want to be pedantic there is no such thing as a strict physical law. In fact in practice law is a weaker term than theory. Opposite of what it is in informal English.

In that sense yes, evolution is only a theory, but so is gravity, not only Newtons but also Einstein's.

Then again both evolution and gravity are observed FACTS - for which why have THEORIES explaining the facts. Theories, of which some have been expressed in form of a series of LAWS.

Facts are observed.
Theories explain observed facts.
Theories are sometimes stated as a small set of laws.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[interkin3tic]

Surely even the staunchest of Creationists must acknowledge the so called "short-term" evolution that gives us the ability to manipulate plants or breed wolves into dogs.

I think you give too much credit to a movement which endorses ignorance as a science.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Dahamma]

Honestly your definition is really no better than many of the others you have snidely tried to put down, and worse than some.

In the natural sciences, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.

You clearly seem to disagree with that definition. Well, it wasn't the wording of some random atheist (I had to look up what the "ACA" even stood for; assuming you weren't talking about the American Cornhole Association) - it is a direct quote from an award winning biologist and educator with a lot more credibility than you will ever have. And it's trivially easy to find many others in academia who describe it the same way, as a tested and substantiated explanation, which is exactly what I said.

If a theory is thoroughly proven wrong, it's rejected, and is no longer relevant as a theory in a scientific sense, just a historical sense.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[wagnerrp]

My regional ISP gives me up to six dynamically allocated addresses, and it would take me all of about 30 seconds to go into my firewall configuration, point my desktop out through another external address, and moderate myself up.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[purplebear]

No, if I had my way, they would all be alive and in loving families.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[wagnerrp]

... and a bit lumpy, plus it's cracked in places.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[narcc]

Yes, I do disagree with that nonsense definition -- which anyone with even a cursory knowledge of philosophy of science would agree is total nonsense.

I offered a couple very simple definitions that that completely accurate if a bit incomplete to counter the load of nonsense that non-scientist science cheerleaders have been spreading since the Dover trial.

If a theory is thoroughly proven wrong, it's rejected, and is no longer relevant as a theory in a scientific sense, just a historical sense.

Nonsense. While it's true that such a theory will be rejected, it is still a theory in the scientific sense.

Go read a book.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[purplebear]

Children. The child's body is within the woman's body. Yes, the child is a human being long before being able to live outside the woman's womb. Should a person dependent on life support not be considered human anymore but just a lump of flesh wasting space? Yes, it should be illegal to terminate through deliberate action. It is murder. Yes, illegal through irresponsible action. Same as DUI homicide or poisoning any other person. Yes, illegal through deliberate inaction. Although your example is not necessarily inaction. It is illegal to starve any other human. A line should not be drawn. All life should be equally protected and fought for. Of course, let's stick with the current definition of homicide since this is the killing of a human being.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[purplebear]

I am pleased you will be sufficiently entertained.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[ILongForDarkness]

Exactly. Add to that tax incentives for people with houses, people with kids etc. People chose these things and if that is how they want to spend their money fine. But don't give away revenue that the government would otherwise be entitled to encourage a particular set of choices over another (and then get your money from other sources, ex. singles living in apartments with no kids).

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Dahamma]

Go read a book.

That's where that came from. I could quote from others but you are not worth debating any more; if you want to look them up go read a book. Or don't bother, I'm sure some random arrogant /. poster knows SO much more than the *real* scientists doing the research, lecturing, and writing the textbooks.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[narcc]

Or don't bother, I'm sure some random arrogant /. poster knows SO much more than the *real* scientists doing the research, lecturing, and writing the textbooks.

Unlike the scientifically illiterate slashdot crowd, I actually do have a research degree.

As for your nonsense quote, I can pull at least two text-books off my shelf that define an hypothesis as a "guess". It's undoubtedly wrong, but there it is.

Get over yourself and stop spreading nonsense! You're doing more harm than good!

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[wagnerrp]

No. Evolution is still a theory. There is no fact in science. There is observation, and interpretation, and nothing more. While there is experimental evidence showing genetic variation and adaptation between different related species, long term artificial selection in domesticated breeding programs, and laboratory testing showing short term selection and adaptation in bacteria, there is nothing disproving the existence of omniscient, omnipotent being of rehydrated processed grain, playing a practical joke on us five billion years in the making, to cause us to think this is all a natural process.

Evolution is our best interpretation of the available evidence, using Natural Selection as its adaptive vector. Science cannot disprove the presence of a creator. There is exactly zero evidence one exists, but then there is exactly zero evidence one doesn't exist. No scientist will ever say there is no god, as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The problem with creationists, intelligent designists, and their whole lot is that they take their own theory on blind faith. They already know they are correct, so there is no need to prove they are correct. All they have to do is prove that evolution is incorrect, and they're automatically all that's left. It never even comes into their thought process that they could be wrong and Evolution is right, or both they and Evolution are wrong, and some completely foreign third concept is what is actually going on.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Dahamma]

The AC commenter makes a good point - that's why a common statement you hear in the debate is "evolution is a theory and a fact" (more accurately it contains a bunch of facts).

A "law" is really more a statement of a specific predictable result given certain conditions. Evolution a a theory is so broad it's hard to find any absolute predicable outcomes based on set circumstances; but there are laws in biology used to help describe evolutionary processes, like Mendel's Laws, for example...

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[turbidostato]

"no they aren't."

Of course they are. Neither you can just sum up speeds (so the theory is wrong) nor two electrons (disregarding the electrical effects) attract each other as the attraction law states.

That the numbers match for a certain scenarios is not what makes right or wrong a theory or law. Do two bodies attract each other *exactly* proportionally to their masses and inversely to the square of their distance? No, they don't. Do exist privileged space references that could stablish the absolute motion of an object? No, they don't.

But it works! Yeah, it works, of course it works or else it couldn't have been accepted (imagine Newton predicting apples falling upwards) but so does work ptolemaic astronomy with its (basically) circular orbits and the Earth in the center of the Universe -ask any sailor or air pilot. The point is that they don't work in each an every case that the theories themselves said they worked and where they work, they do for the wrong reasons.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[wagnerrp]

Observation is not fact. Observation is only the recorded evidence based off the limits of our sampling mechanisms. Better sampling mechanisms could come along with finer granularity and show previous observation was completely missing the important bits. Some unknown or unaccounted for phenomenon could be affecting the instrumentation causing it to give bad measurements. There is no fact in science, only the current data and our interpretation of it. When you start throwing around words like fact, you are no better than those who wish to discredit science for their own gains by misrepresenting the meaning of theory.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[turbidostato]

"If you want to be pedantic there is no such thing as a strict physical law"

Being pedantic, it is the opposite: there's no other kind of law but the strict one (that's true even for the common/legaleese meaning for "law").

"in practice law is a weaker term than theory"

Your opinion. Law is a *different* term than theory: Government produces laws, never theories and there's no way that a theory becomes law (but theories produce a frame that induces laws -God is almighty and the Bible can't be wrong, so let's pass a law about evolution teaching in the schools).

"Then again both evolution and gravity are observed FACTS"

Of course they are, but were you, not me, the one splitting hairs about the "common" and "formal" word usage: in "common usage" when people talks about "evolution" doesn't mean the observed fact of the change of fenotype distributions from generation to generation but "Darwin's theory about the evolution of species by means of random mutations and selection of the best fitted" and when talking about gravity they don't talk either about the stated fact that apples come to ground but about the law that very specifically states how each and every object of the Universe, disregarding its position, speed or mass attract every other else.

"for which why have THEORIES explaining the facts"

We have... or we haven't. Again, what was the theory that explained in 1608 why planets rounded the Sun in elliptic orbits with the exact speed such in equal times the triangles formed by the arc of the orbit and the Sun were of the same area? There you have a LAW (the Second Kepler Law of planetary motion), and quite a precise one, that came out of plain observations, without a theory explaining why would that be the case.

"Facts are observed."

True, but tautological.

"Theories explain observed facts."

Theories do much more than that because theories, and that's the important part of them, explain STILL UNOBSERVED facts.

"Theories are sometimes stated as a small set of laws."

No, they never are and are in fact the opposite: at most, theories describe the predicted facts by means at least partly of some laws. Even Dirac (the first famous one to abandon the idea that theories had to "make sense") would agree to that.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Larryish]

Can we all hail Pope Ratzo, instead?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[sincewhen]

"Mankind" didn't correct the bible, it was God working through the hand of man, to correct the previous mistakes of man which happened when said omniscient God wasn't watching!

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Tablizer]

There is room for criticism of evolution, such as the Cambrian Explosion. Almost all the major phylum of current life came from out of nowhere in the fossil record with hardly a trace of how it happened. It's an unsolved mystery. Of course that's not a reason to dismiss evolution, but it still has notable gaps.

I don't see any real problem with describing the major rough areas in textbooks and classrooms. However, the evidence for creationism is so weak as to not deserve mention in a typical class setting: there's no room for long-shot theories because even the top theories are difficult to cover.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[dudpixel]

You'd be surprised how many people believe evolution is about making less complex organisms into more complex ones, or making the next generation "better" in some objective way than the current one.

Anyone got an example of this?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[dudpixel]

Its amazing that she could get a degree in biology without "believing" in evolution. It's a bit like a physicist that doesn't believe in gravity.

Great analogy...because we dont understand much about gravity either...

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[dudpixel]

Is it really so difficult for you to understand that the bible actually isn't trying to calculate pi for you in this chapter?

So to suggest that "the bible lays out Pi" is just wrong. It intended nothing of the sort, and when you understand that the cubit itself was an approximate measurement, its no wonder they rounded everything to the nearest cubit.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[mombujombu]

Hey... Is that you, Sheldor?!

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[isilrion]

Quoting the GP (emphasis mine):

Those who claim the old testament of the bible is literally true tend to wriggle quite amusingly when that one comes up.

The quoted passage didn't mention an approximation. It said 10 and 30. So the bible cannot be literally true as a whole. To claim that it is literally true in the face of errors like this is absurd: at least some parts are not true. At most you can say that some parts may be true, some are just approximations, and some may be false, which was the GP's point.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[blackpig]

If species evolved from one to another over millions of years we would find millions of transitions in the fossil record. But... we haven't.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html

Next!

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[ccanucs]

The Senate approved a bill Monday evening that deals with teaching of evolution and other scientific theories ...

Well, there's your problem, right there. The overall concept of evolution is no longer a theory. Surely even the staunchest of Creationists must acknowledge the so called "short-term" evolution that gives us the ability to manipulate plants or breed wolves into dogs.

That's not evolution.

Yes, as with most fields, a long time ago there were sets of theories. Like prior to Watson and Crick, back when you had Darwinian Evolution, Larmarckian Evolution, etc. Not anymore though. You might have theories about very specific things in the field that might be impossible to prove -- like, say, what the Last Eukaryotic Common Ancestor (LECA) looked like -- but Evolution is no longer a theory. The field moves forward while Tennessee makes themselves look like idiots from some forgotten era.

And a theory without experimentation and repeatable results will always be a theory. To teach a theory as fact is contrary to the scientific method which requires a hypothesis and experimentation that leads to a conclusion otherwise it is simply not science. There are none of those for anything that is called evolution. There *are* some of those for what is provably natural selection, but natural selection in a limited context is not evolution on any larger scale. W.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[ccanucs]

I'm a scientist and an engineer. I don't believe in evolution. I don't have a blank stare. I work with facts. W.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[ccanucs]

The concern that people who hold a strictly creationist viewpoint have in terms of their reason for making the argument at all to others is this: that without the literal creation of Adam and Eve, there is no fall, no depravity, no accountability for any human moral action since everything is entirely relative and there are no absolutes (except of course the absolute that there must be no absolutes). That's going to cause a lot of people to be in shock one day... Nevertheless, those who believe it strictly also hold that since it is "by faith that we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God", they don't seek to convince others of creation before they have been given faith which they hold to be something that does not originate in them in the first place but say: "it is the gift of God" to them. As a result, the argument is moot. Teaching it as fact is one thing. Seeking to convince others of the fact is pointless. Teaching about the unproven theories of evolution is a perfectly valid and worthy goal of an educator who believes in a strict view of creation. Depends how they do it. W.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[fullmetal55]

Please read before you post, it makes your trolling less obvious.

My post was written criticizing creationists and creationism. In fact I said specifically that the one thing I had hoped to come out of it was open mindedness. Not creationism... "is not so much the teaching of creationism as being on the same playing field as evolution" I didn't feel the need to in this audience to clarify that phrase with "of course it isn't" because we're all adults here and pandering leads to bitterness. and I'd get other trolls biting me.

I haven't once mentioned teaching creationism as science. The law specifies teaching "alternative theories" Now, I read that not as "teaching creationism!" I read that as teaching "alternative theories" You see, when I was growing up, Science class throughout elementary, and high school was about spouting "FACTS" when as I've grown up, taken university science classes, done research papers, studied on my own etc. Science isn't about facts. It's about knowledge, and expanding that knowledge. And if you're closed minded to other ideas (As creationists are! had to put that in there JUST FOR YOU!!!), mankind will never grow as a race. Never "Evolve" if you will. Now, you spout facts, and theories without fully comprehending them. Yet one of the most open-minded creationists I've ever talked to, talked about guided evolution, and he believed that God created mankind, but didn't just wave a magic wand and make them all appear exactly as they are now, but rather gave the spark which created the life we know which we have not been able to replicate and do not fully comprehend the mechanisms behind. And then slowly through the millenia guided how the life would evolve into what we are now. Now I thought about that for a while, and have come to the conclusion there is emperical evidence for it. Here are a few historical examples, wheat that was bred to provide better crops in a shorter growing cycle. Canola. the domestic Cow. all of these forms of life have had their natural evolution detoured by the hand of man. These "Facts" opened my mind to the possibility of guided evolution. Do I believe the flying spaghetti monster waved his noodly appendage and created all the pirates? Of course not. that's just silliness talking. That was a made up story to prevent kids from growing up to be economists... But can I disprove it? Not yet, it is disprovable however. The existence of a God is of course unprovable, and thus un-disprovable and non scientific. something must be disprovable. and guided evolution most certain is.

You obviously don't fully understand scientific "theories" either. Gravity for example has two parts. There is the fact that it exists, that much is self evident, and then the theory as to how it works, that has been tested and tested and has passed every test we've thrown at it thus far, becoming accepted as fact, but a discovery tomorrow could throw everything we know about gravity out the window, granted that is extremely unlikely. Evolution is a fact, the theory is the method of how it works, natural selection, spontaneous mutation, etc. those are the theories of evolution. There are scientific facts, and then there is the theory of how that fact works, so that we can utilize that fact for other things. Gravity has implications in dozens of other scientific research. And it's not all about how fast a coin and a feather fall in a vacuum, if our calculations are wrong, or there is even a single exception to the rule it puts all that other research in doubt.

So just because someone has evidence of something you disagree with doesn't mean you can close your mind to that evidence, because "it's not the same" like the guided evolution (genetic modification, genetic manipulation, selective breeding or whatever you want to call it) of wheat and canola. A true scientist accepts all evidence whether or not it proves or disproves his hypothesis, science isn't about picking and choosing your results. Open mindedness is the key.

Basica

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Mr. Firewall]

OH... EM... GEE

That is the funniest thing I've seen since the founding of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Mr. Firewall]

Unfortunate that this was modded as flamebait.

My partner and I also spent time in Tennessee. Three years in Nashville. And we don't ever want to go back either.

The laziest, most incompetent people I've ever been around. Not to mention flat-out stupid. I lost count of the number of times I heard the phrase "ever'body knows that evolution is a lie" said with a straight face.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[broken_chaos]

The great grandparent must be one of the only blatantly racists posts to get +5 Insightful. I guess it's a blessing he didn't reference the GNAA, at least...

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[kevmeister]

Discoveries are not theories, but the several theories of evolution attempt to explain how evolution happens and why. Evolution was widely accepted as a fact long before Darwin, but he presented the first fairly complete and credible theory on how it happened. Several other theories have been brought forward since which incorporate different parts of Darwin's theory along with different explanations for other parts. (Darwin was certainly wrong about some significant aspects of evolution.)

The evidence that evolution happens is really pretty incontrovertible. It's the details of how that are theories. And most people don't understand that true theory requires significant evidence to back it up. The public usually conflates theories and hypotheses.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Anonymous Coward]

(Side note: Lol, oh man. I love the default name for if you're too lazy to mess with creating an account.)

Evolution, specifically natural selection, is neutral. It's not progressive, it does not positively advance a species.

It's what benefits the population right here, right now. Favorable traits are passed on. Whats favorable in one environment (bright colors to attract mates), will instantly become unfavorable in another environment (said bright colors would attract predators)

"Favorable" traits aren't necessarily "good" traits, and there's nothing progressive about passing on very specific, current environment friendly "favorable" traits. It's all neutral.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[KahabutDieDrake]

That's quite the word salad to dodge a simple point: that the Bible lays out Pi in a clear cut (but false) fashion that presents a bit of a problem for those who insist that the book is the Literal Gospel Truth.

This is what you choose to take issue with against biblical literalists? That's a tiny bit myopic, isn't it? Perhaps we could get a bit of a bigger picture.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[mywhitewolf]

well, that just opens the argument of "i wonder what else is approximated in the bible" seems awfully vague for "the word of god"

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Flawi]

Don't you mean "sun is the center of our planetary system, also known as the solar system"?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Aryden]

I was born in Tennessee and was REQUIRED to take and pass a bible course focused on the old testament in order to graduate the 6th grade, this folks, was in '91 in a public school. I moved to Georgia and when we took biology, our teacher was required to state to the class something to the order of: "I am legally required to allow any and all students who are offended by the teaching of evolution, to leave the classroom." Funny thing was, no one left.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Capsaicin]

Saying "God guided the process" or otherwise suggesting that evolution can work in a deterministic fashion is utterly wrongheaded and unscientific, and it gives people the false impression that evolution, as a process, is in some way goal-oriented. But it isn't, and it never has been.

That simply begs the question. Those who believe in a creation guiding God could point out that Evolution only appears non-teleological (evolution must be deterministic or else a whale could give birth to an ape) to you because of your restricted frame of reference. Your knowledge of all simultaneous events throughout the universe is, to say the least, limited. God on the other hand willed the physical laws into existence in full knowledge of the determined outcomes right from the point of creation (ie. the big bang). My writing this post to you would already have been in Her mind at the point of singularity.

You'd be surprised how many people believe evolution is about ... making the next generation "better" in some objective way than the current one.

Yes, Darwin was one of them. He posited survival of the fittest.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[mywhitewolf]

did you even read the first 5 sentences?

The significant figures (also called significant digits) of a number are those digits that carry meaning contributing to its precision. This includes all digits except:
leading and trailing zeros which are merely placeholders to indicate the scale of the number.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Aryden]

It really is something of a wonder to behold when you realize that the catholics are actually on the liberal side in the religio-sphere of the U.S.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Aryden]

Yet to children, what the teacher says, and HOW they say determine an initial belief in the statements being given to them. If a teach stands at the front of a class of impressionable kids and speaks with derision about a topic, the students are damn well going to follow suit. I have a 9 year old, I see this shit all the time and have to spend valuable hours of my life correcting the stupid shit that comes out of these teacher's mouths.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[m1xram]

Its amazing that she could get a degree in biology without "believing" in evolution.

That's a strange statement. Belief is a religios concept. Science is dirived from the scientific method where things are proven such that no belief is required. Gravity can be measured and observed. The Electron Theory can be measured and observed. But evolution still requires belief. Do you believe that all the missing fossil evidence will be found someday? Or, do you disbelieve all the evidence found by molecular biologists that the cell itself is irreducibly complex and can not possibly have evolved?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[purpledinoz]

Umm, some people are still struggling with the "earth is round" theory. This video from The View is really astounding. America is fucked.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Empiric]

Did you even read -that one sentence-?

Notice the word "EXCEPT".

If that isn't clear enough, try a few sentences down:

For example, the population of a city might only be known to the nearest thousand and be stated as 52,000, while the population of a country might only be known to the nearest million and be stated as 52,000,000. The former might be in error by hundreds, and the latter might be in error by hundreds of thousands, but both have two significant figures (5 and 2).

Same situation. The trailing zeros are -not- significant, only the 5 and the 2, as directly stated, applying to both examples.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[EuclideanSilence]

Funny how much criticism he gets, since Kepler we've known the sun isn't the center, it's off at one focus of elliptical orbits.

But maybe there is a sun at the center of the galaxy. Maybe he meant that one.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[DarwinSurvivor]

pi simply can't be expressed *digitally*, but it can be expressed using an analog system. Since it's a ratio, you simply need 2 things that are 1/pi different from each other (like to line lengths). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Alex Belits]

The whole point of reality is that it is not optional. It's immoral to teach people to ignore the truth, therefore what your teacher did was evil.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Alex Belits]

Because marriage has nothing to do with religion, it's religion that made some stupid ceremony on top of completely secular ideas of family and monogamy.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Alex Belits]

Congress shall also make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of any religion,

COOL!!! Now I can exercise my religion of Violent Oppression of Idiots, that requires its follower to kill an idiot every day!

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Alex Belits]

...there are also things like Hooke's Law, that never were seen as anything but approximation. "Law" in science means anything that describes relationship between observable parameters. They may reflect a theory that explains why and how the relationship is caused, but just as well they may be summaries of observations that await explanation.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Alsee]

Would you claim that Freedom of Speech doesn't protect the written word?

The First Amendment protects Freedom of Speech, and "Speech" was clearly intended in a broad sense to include talking as well as writing, drawing, and any other form of expressive communication.

The First Amendment protects Freedom of Religion, and "Religion" was clearly intended in a broad sense to include entire religions as well as any portion, including any individual religious belief or practice.

The First Amendment denies Congress any power to impose, prohibit, promote, or suppress, any overall religion as well as any particular beliefs or practices of a religious nature.

Originally the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, but it is obviously absurd to permit state and local governments to infringe the Freedom of Speech, to infringe the Freedom of Religion, to engage in warrantless searches and seizures, or to deny people the right to legal defense and trial by jury in criminal cases. This absurdity was remedied by the 14th Amendment, and the Bill of Rights now applies to legislation passed at all levels of government. And I would be astounded and appalled at anyone arguing that state or local governments should have the power to violate the Bill of Rights.

All powers and authority of government officials and employees derive exclusively from powers granted to them by legislation. Government employees are unable to create rules or regulations violating the Bill of Rights because no legislature itself has the power to violate the Bill of Rights, and a legislature cannot create a law delegating to some official a power that the legislature itself does not posses.

No legislature can infringe upon Constitutional Rights, nor can any government official or employee wield governmental powers in any manner with an intent or effect of infringing upon Constitutional Rights.

School Prayer makes a perfect case study:

Students have the protected right of Freedom of Religion. Students have the freedom to pray if and how they want, so long as it is non-disruptive. Lighting a prayer-bonfire at any time would be extremely disruptive and criminal, screaming in the hallways between classes or during lunch would likely be disruptive, and talking above a whisper would potentially be distractive and disruptive during a class lesson. Students can however pray in school as much as they like so long as they aren't being bizarre and somehow disruptive about it.

Teachers and other school officials also have Freedom of Religion, so long as it does not disrupt their work or somehow infringe upon the students. For example they could of course pray during their off periods or pull out a Bible or Koran to quietly read while students take a test, however interrupting class time and holding students captive to recite Bible or Koran verses would obviously be just as disruptive as interrupting the class to recite baseball scores every day. It would also be an abuse of their powers to holding the students as a captive audience and placing the force of government upon their religious practice

Separation of Church and State.
Students and officials are free to pray while in school, however government employees are forbidden to abuse their official powers to either promote or suppress prayer or any other practice by students under their control. A principal cannot punish a student for (appropriate-volume) prayer, nor can he hijack the Public Address system to forcibly impose his preferred prayer upon captive students. A principal or other school official cannot abuse their legislatively-granted-force-of-government powers with the purpose or effect of promoting or suppressing prayer by students.

It's important to note that descriptions of school prayer court battles are often grossly misinformed and grossly misleading. I've read countless articles of someone ranting about some horrible court ruling denying students the freedom to pray in schools, and each and every time I type the name of

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[MadFan]

Are you aware that that in that verse that that word circumference is misspelt there and only there in the entire bible. Normally the Hebrew word is 3 letters long but the misspelt word is only 2 letters long. The scribes would write in the side they believe it to be the 3 letter word "circumference" but they never corrected the "mistake".

As it turns out, if you use the code of a=1 b=2 c=2, for the Hebrew language you get a value of:
3 letter = 111
2 letter = 106.

111 / 106 = 1.0471698113207547169811320754717 notice something with that value? it's 1/3rd of Pi to 4 decimal places
111 / 106 * 3 = 3.1415094339622641509433962264151 which gave an accuracy to 1/15000 of an inch.
pi == 3.1415926535897932384626433832795

Just thought I should mention that next time you feel like trying to boast about something.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[MadFan]

Actually Natural Selection was known before Charles Darwin even took his voyage.

Edward Blyth (1810–1873) was the man whose ideas probably influenced Darwin most. An English chemist and zoologist, Blyth wrote three major articles on natural selection that were published in The Magazine of Natural History from 1835 to 1837.7 Charles was well aware of these. Not only was this one of the leading zoological journals of that time, in which his friends Henslow, Jenyns and Lyell had all published articles, but also it seems that the University of Cambridge, England, has Darwin’s own copies of the issues containing the Blyth articles, with Charles’s handwritten notes in the margins!

The publication of his Origin of Species was in 1859, 20 years later. So Natural Selection is a creationist theory.
I am sure that will make some of you through up in your own mouths. :-)

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[TheRaven64]

Actually Natural Selection was known before Charles Darwin even took his voyage

Not quite. It was hypothesised. Darwin's voyage played a major part in providing it enough evidence for it to become an accepted theory. Blyth's articles were highly controversial, and a lot of people dismissed them as being weak on evidence, in much the same way that Einstein's work was dismissed by a lot of people until Eddington showed observations that matched Einstein's predictions and not Newton's.

This is probably the most important thing to cover in a school science class: that science is not dogma. That there are prevailing theories, but observations and experimental results always trump theories. People may be emotionally invested in a particular theory, but eventually the ones that don't stand up to testing are discarded.

So much of science teaching in school seems to fall into the form of 'this is true because scientists tell us it's true'. This is no different from saying 'this is true because priests tell us it's true' and so it's no wonder that people grow up confusing science and religion. I would be far happier if children left school with a deep understanding of the scientific method but not knowing that the Earth went around the Sun than the other way around.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[gtall]

Scientific theories, especially those from the 1900s onward, are rarely proven wrong in the sense of "completely wrong" as I think you believe (maybe you don't). Modern scientific theories, when a problem occurs, are usually proven incomplete or not entirely accurate. Einstein never proved Newton wrong, what he proved was that Newton's theory was not entirely accurate. NASA still uses Newton's theory because sometimes, the relativity of gravity just doesn't make a big enough difference to care about.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[tehcyder]

Only a godless commie paedophile would say something like that. So, are you a godless commie paedophile? Huh?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Oswald McWeany]

I'm far from an expert on the bible or religion so I can't say what it means.

There could very well be another Goliath- or Elhanan could be an alternate name for David even. There are many rational explanations I am sure. I will leave that for those that are bible experts to say. I would suspect it was just a mistake from two people telling different accounts of the same story generations later. Whether the bible is true or not- we have enough eveidence that most of it was not written by contemparies of the people about whom most of the stories are told.

Really though, the problem is not that two people are listed as killing Goliath- it's that the KJV decided the original Hebrew text needed to be correcting. The KJV assumes the original Hebrew text is incorrect. How can a translation of something that is incorrect be assumed to be correct? How can they be sure that there isn't other incorrect statements they didn't miss if the Hebrew version is incorrect.
Do they not find it odd that the only way to get the true word of God is in English? Perhaps God is from Liverpool and doesn't speak any other language.

As for statistically do most fundamentalists use the KJV? I can't say I know this as a fact. I do live in the middle of the bible belt with many fundamentalists; from my personal experience, yes, they've been KJV fans. I won't make the fallacy to believe that my experience is the norm; however the general belief is that KJV is the bible of choice for fundamentalists. I don't have stats to back that with though.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[tehcyder]

I doubt the Tenesee law will change much in the classroom, merely decriminalize common behavior.

I don't see why you would want to decriminalize chiuld abuse, which is what brainwashing children with poisonous fantasies amounts to.

Your federal government should step in, arrest all "teachers" peddling this Christian filth and let them rot in jail until they recant. Or maybe even burn a few, Christians love martyrs.

Whatever its faults, one thing I always loved about the USSR was that they tried their absolute best to rid Russia of religion in the public sphere.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[tehcyder]

I expect that passage can be explained away as being metaphorical, as that's what religionists always do when confronted with yet another schoolboy error in their holey book.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[tehcyder]

I think my eighth grade teacher handled the question perfectly. When he introduced the topic he said we didn't have to agree with the theory but that to be educated people in the modern world we had to understand it. If I remember correctly, some (perhaps most) of the test questions started with the phrase, "According to the theory of evolution...".

That teacher should have been sacked, and ideally sentenced to a couple of years in prison in the nonce section for mental paedophilia. He raped your brain, and you don't even seem to mind.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[jcaldwel]

No, it's not. Gravity is readily observable. It's a little different, although admittedly still surprising.

Evolution has also been observed in quite a few cases. Here is one example of a strain of e coli evolving a new functional trait in a lab. Also, antibiotic resistance of diseases are as a result of evolutionary pressures.

Locusts primarily walk only with the two anterior pairs of legs, and hop with the posterior pair.

Nope. Have you ever seen one walk? They step with the front four, and push with the back two. The gait is different, but they definitely use all 6 to walk.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[tehcyder]

The theory of evolution is only compatible with Christianity if you decide to ignore things like the book of Genesis, or, more amusingly, decide to treat them as metaphors.

If God didn't create the universe in seven days, fashion Adam out of dust, etc, then the Bible is lying. Simple as that.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Thugthrasher]

The fossils are there. Go to your local museum and you'll see some of them. Darwin would be very impressed with the level of fossils we have now. Most animals that die are not fossilized. Really, it's a huge minority that get fossilized. It's impressive that we have as many as we do.

The only way to 'prove' to a lot of people who give the argument that you do that a specific creature evolved from another specific creature is to have a PERFECT fossil record that contains every individual between the first creature and the second. That will NEVER happen because of the physical reality that fossils are not common.

Interesting fact, if we DID have the fossil record from one individual to another, you would never see an instance where a mother could be classified as a different species from her child if you just looked at the two of them. The child would be slightly different from its mother. In fact, there is debate as to what species some of the fossils we have did belong to because of this. 'Species' when looking at fossil record just means that "this fossil is different enough from this fossil, that in order to classify them we give them a separate name." In reality, it wasn't like a monkey's ancestor had a human child, there were a TON of mutations that occurred in between, with each likely being minor changes that eventually diverged enough to become called a new species.

And to touch on ANOTHER point you said:
What is the average time for a mutation? It's a silly question because it's basically one generation, once you get into organisms with a large number of cells/genes. And, really, it's less than that. Every human zygote, for example, averages at over 120 mutations. Most of them do nothing, of course, but they are still mutations. And yes, there ARE thousands of mutations within any species (that has a large enough set of genes; single-celled organisms, for example, will have less total mutations than cardinals), most just aren't noticeable.

Now, maybe you meant what is the average time for a mutation that has a noticeable effect? The reason why THAT isn't an easy answer is because it varies and has varied so much. First, the larger a genome, the more likely there will be mutations. The more DNA pairs something has, the more likely it is that there will be mutations. The shorter the time from birth to reproduction in an individual of a species, the shorter the time between mutations. The more children an individual of a species has (either at once OR over the course of a lifetime), the greater the chance of a noticeable mutation. Add in the fact that some mutations would be noticeable with just a single change and others would require a large number of changes to be noticeable (and thus are less likely to occur because of randomness). Take all that, determine how those things actually affect the rates, apply that to every species that EVER lived on the planet, and you have the average time to a noticeable mutation. Now do you see why people 'avoid the question like the plague?' It's because it is too complicated to answer based on our current knowledge.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Alsee]

It's funny how some people keep trying to dump all the blame on Jefferson. As you read the quotes below you should notice that Jefferson's only crime was his greater talent for language.

James Madison variously wrote "perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters", "total separation of the church from the State", "separation between religion and & Gov't", "line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority", "distinction between Religion and Civil Government".

And if you read the full quotes in context you'll see that every one of those quotes is a "less terse" and less catchy way of saying "Separation of Church and State", and he is stating that Separation of Church and State is the intended and correct interpretation of the First Amendment. And as a reminder, Madison introduced the Establishment clause at the Constitutional Convention, Madison was the primary author of the Establishment clause, Madison led the discussion on voting to pass the Establishment clause. Madison is commonly known as the "Father of the Constitution" and "Father of the Bill of Rights" because he was the primary author of both. If there is ANYONE person in history qualified to elaborate on the accurate and intended meaning of the First Amendment, that person is indisputably James Madison.

It's comical the way some people obsess on Jefferson saying it's all his fault and he doesn't matter. Jefferson's claim to fame here is merely that he's a better wordsmith than Madison or anyone else at the Constitutional Convention, Jefferson merely did a better job putting the idea into a clear and catchy 5 terse words.

The Constitution grantees Freedom of Religion. And the only possible meaning of Freedom of Religion is Separation of Church and State. Our right of Freedom of Religion means we have a protected right against any use of the force and power of government for the purpose of imposing, promoting, suppressing, or prohibiting any particular religious beliefs or practices.

For example students have a protected right to pray in school if they choose to do so. School officials are prohibited from (ab)using their government-granted powers to prohibit or punish prayer. And school officials are equally prohibited from (ab)using their government-granted powers in any sort of attempt to enforce or induce students to pray.

If you ever read any sort of article ranting about some evil court ruling prohibiting students from praying in school, the author of the piece is grossly misinformed at best and full of shit at worse. I have seen many such articles, and each and every time I have typed the name of the case into Google and I've read the actual court ruling, and each and every time the ruling in fact did not prohibit students from praying in school. Each and every time the ruling in fact sanctioned school officials specifically for abusing their governmental powers for the purpose of imposing or promoting their desired religious practices upon students under their control. Sanctioned for violating the students' right of Freedom of Religion, the students' right to be free from some idiot hijacking their governmental powers to forcibly meddle in student's religious lives.

Freedom of Religion = Separation of Church and State = the force of government cannot be used for any purpose of favoring or oppressing particular religious beliefs and practices.

I don't know exactly what agenda has you upset over Separation of Church and State, but if the First Amendment is getting in the way of some desire to hijack the force of government to favor your proffered religious beliefs, or if it's getting in the way of some desire to oppress religions you dislike, too bad. Wannabe Theocrats have the Free Speech right to advocate their beliefs all they like, but the moment you attempt to hijack the Force of Government to infringe upon other people's Freedom of Religion you're damn well going to get smacked down in court. If you don't like it then perhaps we'd both be a lot happier if you moved to some other country that enjoys Theocracy, without that pesky Freedom of Religion stuff getting in the way.

-

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[tehcyder]

Be more careful with that word "believe". Science is most emphatically not about belief. Science is not a religion and takes nothing on faith. Science also does not claim to have all the answers. All of science is based on observable evidence, repeatable experiments, and logical deduction and modeling. I cringe a little every time I see that phrase "scientists believe" in reference to a hypothesis we think is likely true, or a theory, or some other bit of scientific thinking or uncertainty.

A phrase like "scientists believe in the theory of evolution" is just shorthand for saying "scientists are now persuaded by the quality and quantity of evidence that evolution most accurately describes what happens in reality".Everyone has to use the language of the people around them, it is not their fault if many words have been polluted by religious associations.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Thugthrasher]

To presume that ten cubits was exact and that the circumference was incorrect mathematically is not logical, but as it serves your purposes you choose to stick to that version in which a conflict exists between the Bible and math or science when it does not.

I think you miss the point. So, you are saying that the bible is NOT the inerrant word of God, because the humans involved in its creation selectively edited the truth for convenience's sake. If we allow that people quoted in or writing the bible were editing the truth, then how much of a stretch is it to believe that the whole "World created in seven days." thing was a rounding error by the authors?

Not arguing for a "Bible is the literal, infallible word of God" (as I think a literal interpretation Bible is idiotic and absolutely wrong, regardless of your religious beliefs) point here, but your argument is just stupid .

If the circumference of a circle is 30, the diameter is 10, if you round to the nearest whole number.
To 1 decimal place, it's 9.5. To two, it's 9.55. To three, it's 9.549.
If you don't round, it goes to an infinite number of decimal places. So, in ANY writing that gives you the diameter of a circle with a circumference of 10, THERE IS ROUNDING. Therefore, ANY writing that gives you that information is giving you an INCORRECT version of pi, if you calculated pi directly from that. How many decimal places did the Bible need to go to to satisfy you? 1? 2? 3? 100000000000000000? It makes sense to just go with the nearest whole number, particularly with the accuracy of measurement they had back then.

I tend to have to make this point a lot on the internet, but just because an argument supports your side when looked at shallowly, that doesn't make it a GOOD argument. If you are right (and I tend to agree with your overall point here), then there are actual GOOD arguments that make your case for you. The more you use stupid, shallow arguments that don't stand up to a single bit of scrutiny by anyone with a modicum of intelligence and common sense, the harder it is for people like ME who actually at least TRY to use valid arguments to make our point.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[micahjc]

What?!?! It's not the center of the galaxy? When did that happen?!?! But surely it is still the center of the Universe?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Alsee]

A rhetorical question, are you going to argue that the First Amendment doesn't apply to the written word? It says "freedom of speech", and by your argument we're supposed to ignore the author's own elaborations on the meaning of their own words and we're supposed to interpret "speech" and "establishment of religion" in absurdly narrow manners.

Presuming you agree that Freedom of Speech is intended to encompass the written word, and acknowledge that the First Amendment must be interpreted in that manner, then you acknowledge that your argument is ridiculous.

If you're having some disagreement with the interpretation it may be due to awkward nature of the 200+ year-old language style, or perhaps you or one of your teachers had some theocratic agenda that conflicts with interpreting the First Amendment in accordance with the original intent.

You really should read James Madison's writings on the subject. He's the one who introduced it at he Constitutional Convention, he's the one who led the discussion on voting to pass it, and he's the primary author of the dang thing. If there is ANYONE in history qualified to clarify any clear up any confusion on what it means and how to read it properly, it is indisputably Madison.

In case you don't bother, I'll give you the cliffnotes version. Along with explaining how the First Amendment imposes a complete separation between church and state, he lays out a concrete example still applicable today demonstrating that even the current government is in flagrant violation of the Constitution UNDER-enforcing separation of church and state.

-

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[X0563511]

So.... in other words some things you compromise on (because it's easier and gets you somewhere with the morons), and others you just deal with it? (it being people being morons and refusing to believe fact)?

In other words, you got all tussy and repeated exactly what I said, but with more words?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[tehcyder]

So the Law of Gravity is a theory? There is a theory about why it works, but that is separate from the Law of how it works.

It's not a Law, it's just a remarkable string of coincidences.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[tehcyder]

Laws are just handy formulations for the use of non-scientists like engineers.

I bet if you tried really hard you could become perfectly pompous, instead of merely arse-clenchingly pompous.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[X0563511]

My point is that since it isn't written in the document itself the Powers That Be can choose to ignore it without really any recourse. They really should have been more cynical in their forward-thinking.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[readin]

My teacher didn't tell us to ignore anything. We had to learn and understand.

As for what the "truth" is, a good scientist understand that science does not claim to have the truth, it claims to have ideas that fit the available evidence of observations and experimental results. When the evidence changes, the theories often have to change and what was once widely believed becomes thought to be incomplete or just plain wrong.

An philosophical scientist understands that experiments and observations may be misleading as our eyes and ears have limitations and may be just plain being fooled (as in The Matrix).

So while science is a great tool and reveals many useful things to it, you put to much on it to claim it is "the truth".

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[airdweller]

The SNR is very low in your post.

PS. Quoting Nugent doesn't help your image at all. This is not Tennessee.
PPS. There's no 'Clueless' mod.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[SiChemist]

I remember my 8th grade science class (in Mississippi):

Teacher/Football coach: You can read the next section if you want, but I'm not going to teach it or test you on it.

Me: :-(

I was really interested in the subject matter and naive enough that I thought we would actually talk about it. This was in the early 1980's; I don't know what the current situation is like.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[V for Vendetta]

"Intelligent Design" implies that some level of intelligent forethought went into the eventual products of evolution. [...] If people understood that evolution does not actually work that way, "Intelligent Design" would be a completely moot point.

Right, sir! The fact that parts of the human species could come up with a concept called "Intelligent Design" immediately voids the whole ID idea. Nothing "intelligently designed" could ever come up with such a stupid idea. Evolution, OTOH explains this quite well.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[SiChemist]

I think you may have won the thread.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[hazah]

Mutations occur, and the resulting changes are propgated because they do not kill the individual before they reproduce. That's the only objective benefit that counts.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[SiChemist]

But you can't teach religious ideas in a SCIENCE class without strongly implying that they are valid scientific theories. Religious ideas are taught all the time in the schools of the United States-- in religion classes.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[spiffmastercow]

Fail. See this for more details.. Religion was pretty well split on the issue.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Uberbah]

This is what you choose to take issue with against biblical literalists? That's a tiny bit myopic, isn't it? Perhaps we could get a bit of a bigger picture.

What better to demonstrate the absurdity of the notion of 'the Bible as literal truth' than something anyone can falsify in a matter of seconds with a shoelace and a round object? And obviously, if that passage can't be taken as Literal Truth, then no passage should be taken as Literal Truth. Obviously.

Seriously, people are being a wee bit willfully obtuse here.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Uberbah]

Are you really so willfully obtuse as to not realize that the Bible saying 2 + 2 = 5 presents a bit of a problem for the 'Bible as Literal Truth' brigade? If you insist 'well that passage shouldn't be taken literally' then you have to admit the same can apply for any other passage in the Bible.

And there goes the 'Literal Truth' crap out the window...as long as you aren't a dishonest hack, of course.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Uberbah]

I did not dodge anything

Of course you are. The Bible is either Literal Truth, or it's not. Arguing that passages should be taken as the Undeniable Word Of God, except for that one you can falsify in five seconds with a shoelace and a round object, is like saying you can be a "little bit pregnant".

It simply does. not. work.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Tamerlin]

"If people understood that evolution does not actually work that way, "Intelligent Design" would be a completely moot point." Agreed. The first problem is that people think that evolution is an intelligent process rather than random, and fail to understand how slow and inefficient it really is. The second is that our current society is definitive proof against intelligent design; if an intelligence designed us we wouldn't be going out of our way to destroy everything we need to live.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[cavebison]

The bill authorizes all local governments to display "historic documents" and specifically lists the commandments as being included.

Wow, Galaxy Quest was even deeper than I thought.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Ol Olsoc]

Its amazing that she could get a degree in biology without "believing" in evolution. It's a bit like a physicist that doesn't believe in gravity.

I worked with a NucE who believed the world was created in 4004 b.c.e. I had many enjoyable discussions with him about half life dating. All kids of cool stuff came up, like light having variable speeds, and other weird stuff.

So it is very possible to hold multiple contradictory beliefs at the same time.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[purplebear]

How many of those were actual choices made by healthy women with reasonably viable pregnancies they got themselves into,

Too many! Even if it was 1 it was way too many.

and how many were medical treatments to save the woman's life/health?

Both lives should have been equally fought for. If one did not make it, that is extremely unfortunate, but neither should have been sacrificed for the other. What if that choice had to be made between two adults? Both would be fought for as equally as possible. The child in the womb should be fought for no less equally.

Or unwanted pregnancies forced on them by men who wouldn't take No from a "stupid little chick who should just shutup and take it" (or even worse, "I'm the man of the house, I raised her, she obeys me!")?

I would certainly suggest that neither of those examples represent "men". A man before God would not do such things. In the case of the rape example. Why should the child be killed because the woman was raped? That makes no sense whatsoever.

And how many are from fertilized eggs that never implanted because of morning afters? Or just the pill in general?

I am completely opposed to those options as well for the very reason you mention. Both of those options cause spontaneous abortion done deliberately. In both cases, it is murder.

And to get a goodwin in here, compare how many jewish people were lost in 5 years because the germans decided the jewish religion was inferior to their's?

The nazis killed Jews because of their inferior heritage/geneology, not their religion. I don't agree with what they did.

Nice point though. More people have been killed by way of various dictators over the centuries than even the most flawed organized religion.

I am just certain someone will come along and bring up all the life killed under God's direct orders to the Hebrews when entering the land of Canaan. _I_ cannot explain why that was done other than punishment for the sins of those people. Of course, I do not pretend to think I can even fathom the plans God has for us all.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[purplebear]

Going specifically to the old legal definition, it specifically has this:

to make (a church) a national or state institution

I agree with that. It is why the people left England. The state run church is not biblical.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,17 that the man of Godt may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Equipped for every good work. So, we should all turn to God in every thing we set forth to do, and do it with His wisdom and guidance. And that absolutely does include governing this nation.

Many here disagree and label these posts as Troll. I am not trolling. I am spreading truth as I am commanded to do. You can ridicule and mock me all you want. As a matter of fact, I thank you for it. I am sad you are following the path of destruction though, and I will pray for you all.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[dreemernj]

Phlogiston theory fit the definition when it was considered a scientific theory. It is now a superseded/obsolete theory meaning it is not regarded as correct. Nothing about it goes against the agreed upon definition that I mentioned.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[purplebear]

The constitution specifically forbids any state run church. I am in agreement that is the way it should be. The new testament makes it very clear that the local church is the extent of the circle of oversight of any single spiritual leader established by God.
I also agree that you are fully free to worship whatever god you choose. Grant me the same freedom. Allow me to be free to worship God. Allow me to teach my children the truth about God and His creation.

I am not disagreeing with the general sentiment against religion here either. Religion is flawed. Religion is made by man. Faith, which everyone here possess, does govern individual mans thoughts and actions. So should it also influence their decisions in running government.
The writings of the founding fathers referenced here should be studied by all a little more closely. These fathers did condemn religion of the time and bravo for them. It was flawed. That is why they left England to begin with. But their words are twisted to mean things they did not say. I love how the things that fit with an anti-Christian slant are bolded in reference and the rest of the statement completely ignored. Just as one must rely on the whole counsel of God, the entire bible and not just parts, we also must read the entire writings of the founding fathers, not just parts.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Oswald McWeany]

I am not in favour of legislation that prevents you or anyone else worshiping however you choose (assuming it does not take public funds, legislation, and does not impede on the rights of others).

At the time of founding- most people were very religious- but the liberal-intectuals in the US as a whole were less so. We have quite a lot of evidence for it. I don't think they were as a whole anti-christian, not at, all, just not what modern day Christians would recognise as Christian.

The only one of the group who was very anti-Christian was Adams. That doesn't change the fact though that, as a whole, they had no intentions for the government to be run as a theocracy- or have any religious influence.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[purplebear]

I certainly agree there is a huge disparity between people that call themselves Christian today and Christians in the days of the country's founding.
I'll also agree there was certainly no intention of the US ever becoming a theocracy. And I would not want it to be one.
And I tend to agree they had no intention of religion influencing government. They did however have the intention of God's influence. See the dating of the signing of the constitution, "Year of our Lord". See the first amendment proclaimation of Washington praising Almighty God for the drafting. Reference Ben Franklin's, least likely to do this btw, call to the constitutional convention to prayer at the beginning of each day's session for God's guidance in the drafting of the constitution.
These men had no reason to invoke God directly in the constitution. They were forming a God fearing nation; a Christian nation using the definition of Christian from that time. But certainly not a theocracy. The idea of being a secular nation was completely foreign to anyone until the mid to late 1800s.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[bzipitidoo]

Then it's an issue of semantics. I am also a scientist. I try to be careful with words, and because of its connection with religious faith, I try to avoid using that word "believe" in the context of scientific discovery. In a way, I'm glad the anti-intellectuals have forced us to be more careful with our language. We do get sloppy at times. We know common usage of "believe" can mean simply that someone thinks some evidence appears to support a particular idea. But it can also mean someone thinks some idea could be right despite the absence of any credible evidence whatsoever. Closely related is the messiness in the meanings of "law", "theory", and "hypothesis", and I feel we've been a little too sloppy about using "theory" when we really mean "hypothesis", and about going along with the common usage of "theory". That opened the door for the objection that evolution is "just a theory". Ideas such as how the moon formed are, currently, hypotheses, though they are often called theories. Can't expect everyone to just understand, shouldn't blow it off with "you know what I mean", should be more careful with language.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[ldholtsclaw]

Didn't notice I wasn't logged in when I posted that ... so here is my post on the Chattanooga area geek's mailing list spawned by this ridiculous law's passage:

I've been trying to bite my tongue as well (and obviously failed).

My daughter had to deal with mandatory prayer in her elementary school until that principal retired. I ended up having to avoid the campus because of my "blasphemous nature" (his words) ... funny how I got along exceedingly well with the new (non-bible-thumping) principal that replaced him. Thing is, the prayer itself wasn't my problem. I'd had it myself back when I was in school (you could get suspended for "sacrilegious behavior" then too). But he shouldn't have punished those that chose not to participate nor risk wasting my tax dollars on a lawsuit should someone have pushed it to that.

Even now my son has to be careful in his high school since there are both students and faculty whom actively persecute anyone that's a "non believer". Back when my daughter was there, she was refused permission to leave for an appointment to the health department. The school's attendance officer actually called me and gave me an earful, screaming in front of everyone there, about my daughter getting birth control (as if it was any of her business in the first place). She said my daughter wouldn't be doing it if I had her in church and that I was responsible for her going to hell. If she had been the youngest, I might have actually pressed charges on that one.

So, yes, it's a problem throughout the state and I don't see that changing any time soon. Especially given the widespread indoctrination still prevalent in many school systems.

<sacrilege>
My favorite bait for ID folks is to get them to state that we are the way we are since "God designed us" (usually doesn't take long). Then, since "God" is supposed to be infallible, I ask why we have a blind spot in our vision. The reply, if there is one, is usually something along the lines of "because it was the best way to do it" (having the optic nerve connected on the retinal front). I counter with the fact that an octopus doesn't have a blind spot since their optic nerve is connected to the rear. And at this point they usually get angry, call me a heathen and tell me I'm going to hell.
</sacrilege>

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Adriax]

Not going to make any assumptions here. Do you realize your stance is better translated as "Women cease to be humans and become valuable babymaking property the instant sperm touches their uterus."

Screw it, deleted the rest of this. Go troll someone else.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Oswald McWeany]

I make reference to "God" figuratively. Just as "Lady Liberty" is used to represent the US and Britannica represents Britain. When speaking historically I will use the term "AD" instead of "CCE" frequently (no one says "year of our lord" anymore- but that is what AD means- and Christians and non-Christians alike still often use the term AD). I celebrate Christmas; has no religious meaning to me- but I still call it Christmas- not yuletide, not saturnalia, not winter solstice nor midwinter festival. I call it Christmas.

None of these things implies I follow Christianity. Living in a judeo-christian world, those of us who are not, still use expressions of Christian origin.

I may refer to something being out in "left-field" or refer to someone "striking out". I couldn't care less about baseball. I don't watch it. I don't play it. I may call something as having gone hay-wire; yet I've never baled hay or had to deal with hay-wire Yet- the words just like "thank God" have entered my vocabulary- and yes, ironically, I do say thank God from time to time. I may tell someone to go to Hell- even though I don't believe such a place exists.

Have you never heard a non-believer say something like "I pray that doesn't happen" - or something similar. How many people (religious or not) say "I pray that..." and actually do make that prayer? They are probably in the minority. It is a case of relgious terminology making its way into our language and having a hollow meaning (from a religious standpoint).

We have enough evidence from their personal correspondance as to where their beliefs likely lay. Yet just as I will thank God that the idiot behind me on the interstate didn't ram me; I'm sure they used their terminology and phrasology to match that of their contemporaries.

They were also probably wise enough as politicians not to make their doubts on religion too public knowledge. When I go for an interview here in the bible belt I don't advertise my agnosticism.

Washington (who didn't attend church and never took mass, and requested no religious overtunes at his funeral) might have said "praise the almighty" or whatever it was- but that has no more significant for me saying "thank God that idiot didn't run into my car during my commute".

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Shaiku]

Citation?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[operagost]

What are you talking about? You don't get a deduction for belonging to a church! It's the religious orgs themselves that do.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[operagost]

If you can get the left to give up their deductions for green home improvements, EIC, and the like, I'm in.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[operagost]

If you would provide rebuttals with actual content instead of insulting your opponents, you might sound intelligent instead of a belligerent clod. Jefferson is the only one who said, literally, "wall of separation." Interpreting the Constitution based on that one fact is idiocy. Keep your ad hominems to yourself.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[tgibbs]

But scientists do talk about what they believe, and they use the word in the common sense (as in "I believe it is about to rain"). They aren't going to stop doing so, and I think that it is not entirely honest to try to pretend that scientists do not form opinions about theories in advance of compelling evidence. Most scientists do, including many very good ones--they are just flexible and ready to change what they believe in the face of new evidence.

I also don't believe (there it is again) that we should be more strict in the usage of "hypothesis" and "theory." This just caters to the notion, held by some amateurs and often exploited by those who try to play semantic games to undermine scientific knowledge, that we have some sort of formal taxonomy of scientific certainty. In actual usage, scientists may sometimes use "hypothesis" to emphasize that an idea is particularly tentative. But the same person may in the next breath refer to the same idea as a "theory." Trying to get formalistic about it leads into all sorts of problems. What level of evidence do you need to upgrade a generalization from "hypothesis" to "theory"? One experiment? Two? Confirmation by two different labs? Three? Trying to get rigid about it is a nightmare, and you'll never get everybody to go along with any kind of strict criteria.

My view is simple. The facts are the data (or reports of data). All scientific generalizations, interpretations, and explanations are theory. Some theories have a lot of evidence to support them, some have very little, and some are known to be frankly wrong. We may occasionally note that we think that a theory is particularly tentative by calling it a "hypothesis," but we don't have a "theory nomenclature rating board". Every scientist makes his or her independent judgements regarding level of evidence

As for "law," the modern usage doesn't really relate to level of evidence at all--it's become pretty much synonymous with "rule of thumb," meaning a formula or algorithm that is simple, useful, and convenient, whether or not it is exactly correct. We aren't going to stop referring to Newton's equations of motion as "Newton's Laws" (even though we know them to be not quite accurate). And we're never going to start referring to Einstein's equations of motion as "Einstein's Laws" even though they have been verified to incredible precision.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[operagost]

My point is that insulting other ethnic groups on slashdot is largely discouraged. And is slashdot a government-run forum? Your post makes no sense.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[X0563511]

That's great and all, but I'm puzzled as to what it has to do with my stating someone was applying a modern definition to a word in an work written when it had a different meaning - and was written in lawyer-speak at that.

Eg, it has nothing to do with it at all. I respect your beliefs... but I don't respect random off-topic posts.

That's kind of like breaking into a conversation about car engines with "Oh, by the way. Have you found the word of God?" Non-sequetor...

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[turbidostato]

"Are you saying the bible should, or should not, have expressed this measurement of a circle-like, real-world object, as being pi?"

I am saying nothing at all with respect of the bible on this thread.

It was *you* the one that found something weird with someone being amused that those that take the bible as basically a literal relation don't seem to find nothing extrange about the fact of said relation being unable to discern a circumference from an hexagon and went into comparing souls to mathematical abstractions.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Sasha-Whitefur]

"The field moves forward while Tennessee makes themselves look like idiots from some forgotten era."

Not for the first time, either.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[purplebear]

You claim I misinterpreted the use of the word establishment in my reply to someone incorrectly citing the establishment clause. Then you tell me my reply was off topic? Not following.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[narcc]

I disagree. Specifically with the qualifiers "tested" and "commonly regarded as correct"; neither of which are necessary for a theory to be valid. (By valid I mean "is a theory in the scientific sense of the word".)

I used phlogiston as my example because most people are familiar with it and it is, as you point out, obsolete. It was probably a bad example for me to use, considering your response. In this case, it once met your "tested" bit, but now fails the "commonly regarded as correct" bit. The point, of course, was that it is valid as a scientific theory even though the predictions it made did not ultimately square with the new data -- a possibility for any proper theory.

To be scientific, a theory must meet certain criteria. That much we agree on. So what makes a theory scientific? It must be falsifiable, which means that it must make predictions that are subject to empirical investigation. Rather than "tested" the criteria would be "able to be tested" -- that's the difference.

Being "commonly regarded as correct" never enters in to it at all. If that were the case, we'd never see any progress -- any new theory would immediately fail the "commonly regarded as correct" criteria and could be dismissed immediately as being unscientific! (The criteria confuses the process of science with the institution -- which are very obviously distinct!)

Really, this bizarre notion that a theory is a grand achievement or that there is some sort of hierarchy by which ideas move along until they achieve the "theory" status is a new phenomenon. I suspect that it's a reaction to the creation/evolution debate intended to address the infamous "it's only a theory" criticism.

It's this same reaction that leads to other misunderstandings about science and the scope of science in the public consciousness. Things that were once taken for granted are now taboo. I can't say once obvious things like "the epidemiological scope of science is bounded" or "Science does not progress iteratively toward truth" without fear of retaliation by the so-called rationalist community as they're terrified that knowing or admitting the well-known limitations of scientific inquiry will give the creationists/mystics/whomever free reign or even permission to dismiss the whole enterprise and substitute their preferred system.

It's terribly irrational to pretend that science is more than it is or can accomplish more than it's scope allows. To do that is to abandon science entirely by turning it into an ideology.

So, yes, I disagree with your definition.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[purplebear]

Where did I disregard women as no longer human? I expect the lives of both women and children, even those in the womb, to be equally respected and fought for.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[purplebear]

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=98

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[X0563511]

Going specifically to the old legal definition, it specifically has this:
to make (a church) a national or state institution
I agree with that. It is why the people left England. The state run church is not biblical.

This was on-topic. I have no problem with this.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,17 that the man of Godt may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Equipped for every good work. So, we should all turn to God in every thing we set forth to do, and do it with His wisdom and guidance. And that absolutely does include governing this nation.

Many here disagree and label these posts as Troll. I am not trolling. I am spreading truth as I am commanded to do. You can ridicule and mock me all you want. As a matter of fact, I thank you for it. I am sad you are following the path of destruction though, and I will pray for you all.

This, however, was an off-topic rider, and was what my last post was about in it's entirety.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[shutdown -p now]

As it turns out, if you use the code of a=1 b=2 c=2

And if you use some other magic numbers, I bet you could get 42. This kind of meaningless trickery is what numerology is all about.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[zaanan]

Not that this is even worth mentioning, but the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

There, FTFY.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[tolkienfan]

Not completely arbitrary. Some classifications would be completely useless.
In fact, the way you classify can have an enormous affect on how quickly you make progress. A math problem, for example, might become trivial to solve after switching to a particular notation.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[tolkienfan]

Amen!
Sorry, couldn't help myself ;)

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Occams]

You Americans are funny! Scientific theories exist for all time, and don't stop being theories because experiments show them to give predictable results and explain the phenomenon that they were proposed to explain and hence they become widely accepted as the probable truth by most intelligent educated people. Even so these theories are always open to be rejected in the future by superior theories that explain more and enable more predictions. That is how science works. The dumb American Conservative idea that a theory is some kind of vague unproven assertion is extremely naive. The theory of evolution was a brilliant idea that led to some of the best science we have today, including the entire field of genetics. It is one of the best supported theories we have, and will never be deposed by religious morons who believe that it discredits their Bible book of answers to everything. The theory of the Bible as the source of all truth is one that cannot be sustained through scientific method or reason, and it enables us to predict nothing at all. Therefore it should be rejected as science. Even most Christians do not subscribe to that theory - it seems to be mainly supported among poorly educated Americans who do not understand the first thing about science: scientific method and reasoning. This is not a conspiracy, and neither is it a competition. Science is about questions that can't be answered. Religious fundamentalism is about answers that can't be questioned.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Ol Olsoc]

Open-mindedenss is a learned skill. closing your mind to alternate theories is what is wrong with this creationism/evolution debate. both sides are guilty of it, evolutionists focus on the fact that the processes are well documented and observed etc. Creationists focus on the origin.

Oh yes, the ID people owe much of their success to you. The reasonable man, the one who is a decent sort, but thinks we should teach both sides, and let the student decide for themselves. After all, that's only fair, right?

There are so many problems with that approach that it is mind boggling:

First, it is not a two sided dilemma. It is not either The fundamentalist Christian God or Evolution as a choice. The silly old theory of turtles all the way down has equal standing and validity. And there are many other creation stories in other religions. But, you say, they Intelligent design people do not promote that their God is the origin of life on Earth. Umm, some times. More on that later.

Second, it isn't science. When the ultimate end of discussion is "God did it", or even "Aliens from Alpha Centauri did it", that means that any time that personal incredulity comes into play, the discussion is over. Then who is to say that a valid answer to every biology question is not "God did/wanted/created it that way", or "Aliens from Alpha Centauri did/wanted/created it that way".

Third, and the part I was getting to in item 1, is that the people who push for Intelligent design in the classroom have two forms of it. Form one is weak Intelligent design. This is where they state "We do not make any speculation on who created the universe, (or life) we just want to teach to the controversy." The second form is strong Intelligent design. This is the form they use when they speak to friendly audiences, where most or all of the same mind. Strong ID makes no if's and's or but's about it. Their fundamentalist God created the World and all that is in it.

The biggest controversy that they have is that there is debate among them regarding whether the world was created in 4004 B.C.E, or is somewhat older. That's because some of the more fundamental of the fundamental believe that the world was created very recently.

Fourth, the inherent dishonesty of ID's proponents meant that they are breaking one of their own commandments, issued direct form God to Moses. They are lying. I feel no reason to believe people who quite purposely lie to you.

Fro further reading, I would suggest "Intelligent Thought", a compliation of essays on the subject, and would highly suggest reading about the "Wedge Document" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Ol Olsoc]

They're like the animals isolated in the Galapagos Islands ? They're still in the 1800's intelligence wise in Tennessee ?

Actually, I do not think it is a real belief. The fundamentalist Christian God is omnipotent, and there is no reason that he could not have created a world that operated just as science says it does.

I believe that their rejection of Evolution is an example that many humans have a deep seated need of hatred. This is a group who has some contradictory ideas, like being anti-abortion, but otherwise having no problem killing people after they are born - just a sample (before anyone gets on their high horse, I am anti-abortion, and anti-killing except for defense)

I really think that their opposition to Evolution is simply that it gives them outlet for their hatred. If it wasn't evolution, it would be any of a dozen other targets.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Ol Olsoc]

btw dinosaur fossils were created during the flood so thats off the table also

Blasphemy! Heresy! To the rack and the Inquisitor with you, RobertLTux! May God have Mercy on your soul.

Fossils are a test placed in the earth so that God's minions will show their faith.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Ol Olsoc]

Oy! beating up on the guy pretty hard we are!

It is correct that Evolution is and remains a theory, which is to say that the Theory of Evolution is a Theory. That creatures evolve, and over time may become different creatures is as much of a fact as so called continental drift, the earth moving, and the Plate Tectonic theory.

The science in proof or disproof of Evolution is based on many accepted physics concepts, and if Evolution is wrong, then the underlying physics is wrong. This is why you read of creationists tap dancing around, trying to disprove constants like the speed of light, which apparently can speed up and slow down almost at will in their version of physics. We also get weird things like trying to come up with physics on the biblical flood - which not directly related to evolution, shows how people get in trouble when they try to force physics to conform to faith. All of the proposed ideas, like massive water load in the atmosphere (which would create runaway global warming that even they had to admit, or that the water was underground, which is ridiculous - I'll leave it to everyone to figure out the mass issues.

Anyhow, quit beating the guy up. We know what he meant.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[m1xram]

The only way to 'prove' to a lot of people who give the argument that you do that a specific creature evolved from another specific creature is to have a PERFECT fossil record that contains every individual between the first creature and the second. That will NEVER happen because of the physical reality that fossils are not common.

And that is what sceince requires, the proof. Otherwise we are not buying into the religion of evolution. Sorry.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[m1xram]

I consider you my friend.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Thugthrasher]

So, in order to prove gravity, you are requiring us to show you where every object in the entire universe drops towards planets/items with greater mass at particular speeds? Not just showing that occurs and showing how it is consistent every time we look at it, but show you every single object in the universe? Because that's about as likely as what you're asking (approximately, not exactly).

If every single creature that EVER existed on the planet left a fossil (which is what you just said you required), then human beings couldn't exist because the earth would just be a massive mass of fossils. If you know anything about how fossils form, you know that not every creature that dies leaves one. Most that die, don't.

However, like with gravity, consistent rules have been shown regarding evolution. Evolution has been shown to happen, we have SEEN species that have evolved into other species over time. That has happened. Likely within your lifetime. Now, we haven't seen every species evolve into every other species, but that's because we have a limited amount of time (and a limited amount of fossils) we are working with here. We have never seen ANYTHING that indicates that evolution is wrong. All we ask is ONE shred of evidence that evolution is wrong. If it exists, then evolution is proven wrong. But no matter how many times we look and no matter how many fossils are discovered, there is never any evidence AGAINST evolution. And there is always increasing evidence FOR evolution.

There is a reason I put 'prove' in quotes in my original post. And that is because it is because if we applied the standard of proof you are attempting to apply to evolution to ANYTHING, then it could not be proven. Do you believe that every human being alive has a heart? Because, by your standards, it hasn't been proven. Not every single human being has been cut open or somehow otherwise shown that they have a heart. Without that, how can you know everyone has a heart? By your standards, we don't. It's a 'religion' to believe that every human being has a heart (or a brain, or a lung, or any other organ), by your standards. If that's your level of proof required for something, then you are a moron who doesn't deserve to have any say in what is taught as 'science' because you just don't get it.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[m1xram]

So, in order to prove gravity, you are requiring us to show you where every object in the entire universe drops towards planets/items with greater mass at particular speeds? Not just showing that occurs and showing how it is consistent every time we look at it, but show you every single object in the universe? Because that's about as likely as what you're asking (approximately, not exactly).

Please do not compare things like gravity, that are observable and measurable, to evolution, it is not scientific. We need to apply the same scientific standards to evolution not give it a pass.

Evolution has been shown to happen, we have SEEN species that have evolved into other species over time.

Please show the fossil record for the mutations of any species, any at all, from one animal to another. This would be all over the news if it existed. Darwin predicted there should be thousands for any single animal. There are only nodes on the tree chart without the evidence of the branch connections.

But no matter how many times we look and no matter how many fossils are discovered, there is never any evidence AGAINST evolution.

There is the cell. It's been around for 3.5 billion years, as per evolutionists. It has factories in it such as a DNA sequencer, molecular folder, transport mechanisms, along with the programming data to run everything. Assuming that the Earth is a little over 3.5 billion years old, when exactly did this irreducibly complex structure evolve, or even have time to evolve?

Now I've heard evolutionists explain that there are no irreducibly complex structures. Some how a more complex structure boot strapped the process. This makes absolutely no sense when discussing the cell at the beginning of the Earth. What more complex structure, that could have evolved into the less complex cell, existed then? How was the control programming randomly written? You ever try to write a random program for something like an assembly line? It is just too ridiculous for reasonable people to accept.

You have free will and can believe in the religion of evolution if you want, but it is not science.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[readin]

Again, misleading... just imagine if your teacher had used that same tactic when teaching about the holocaust or the earth being round....

Well, after the teacher showed me the films of the camps and the bodies, showed us pictures taken by German soldiers, showed us the testimonials from victims, the testimonials from soldiers who liberated the camps etc. etc. (it would have taken longer because there is just so much evidence for the Holocaust - there is a lot of evidence for evolution but it tiny compared to the evidence for the Holocaust), I think I would have been convinced.

The fact that one of my Uncles saw one of the camps in person would have helped convince me too.

As for the earth being round - learning that a lot of people have gone all the way around, that the shadow of the earth on the moon is round, that the polar regions have midnight suns in summer and 24 hours of darkness in winter, and seeing the pictures taken from space - I think that would have convinced me too.

Of course there isn't a large part of the population that has doubts about the roundness of the moon or that the Holocaust occurred so you don't need to worry about offending people. More importantly you don't need to trample on people's religious freedom by trying to force them to renounce their faith in order to graduate from high school. And if a student were to say to the teacher that he doesn't believe in the Holocaust or the roundness of the earth for religious regions, I would hope that the teacher would find some way to allow the student to get a good grade so long as the student learns and understands the theory and the evidence.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Alex Belits]

My teacher didn't tell us to ignore anything. We had to learn and understand.

It's teacher's duty to teach basic things such as nature of reality.

An philosophical scientist understands that experiments and observations may be misleading as our eyes and ears have limitations and may be just plain being fooled (as in The Matrix).

And once you demonstrate that they are misleading, you can't even tell people to consider such possibility.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[m1xram]

Sorry, but I wasn't saying I wanted to kill you, just that the discussion should be civil, like between friends. But you have no arguments just personal attacks. Should I guess where your compassion comes from, why you are such a zealot for hate? How many people have you wanted to kill on this subject? It's easy to track.

I did like this comment from a code discussion:

Scientific method is for research, and it involves devising theories that make sense.

If you would only apply your logic to the religion of evolution maybe we could advance science.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[RockDoctor]

otherwise suggesting that evolution can work in a deterministic fashion is utterly wrongheaded and unscientific

... which doesn't stop some people from thinking that way. I'm looking specifically at Simon Conway Morris, who as a highly respected palaeontologist, ought to know better. (His big thing is that there is a lot of convergence in evolutionary outcomes, implying a significant degree of predictability.)

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Thugthrasher]

I don't believe in the 'religion of evolution.' I believe in the scientific theory of evolution (and don't go all 'It's just a theory' on me, if you are scientifically literate at all, you understand the difference between the common definition and the scientific definition). I also believe in other things, like a God who created the universe.

Please do not compare things like gravity, that are observable and measurable, to evolution, it is not scientific. We need to apply the same scientific standards to evolution not give it a pass.

Evolution is observable. Evolution is observable every time there is a mutation in a species that sticks around because it either has positive survival benefits or neutral survival benefits (in which case, it sticking around was chance, rather than natural selection, but there is a difference between evolution and natural selection). Hell, evolution would be observable if a member of a species developed a mutation and passed it on (and it propagated) despite having negative survival benefits. That's evolution, too.

Please show the fossil record for the mutations of any species, any at all, from one animal to another. This would be all over the news if it existed. Darwin predicted there should be thousands for any single animal. There are only nodes on the tree chart without the evidence of the branch connections.

I don't need to show fossil records. Fossil records would actually be harder to show than actual animals because of the previously mentioned relative rarity of an animal becoming fossilized and thus the extreme difficulty of finding every individual animal in an evolutionary track. Remember, a mother never (or at least extremely rarely) gives birth to an animal of a different species, the lines aren't drawn that hard in the sand. So, you can't just find 2 fossils, you would need a very large number of generations, all connected directly, parent to child, to show it with ONLY the fossil record. Fossil record is NOT the biggest evidence here.

As far as actual animals, let's go with a simple one, that I can be reasonably sure you've heard of, first. It's not evolution of one species to another, but it's evolution. It's an obvious trait that has developed and become more common throughout a species. If it keeps propagating like it has, it will likely either become a new species or completely change a trait so that the old species basically doesn't exist anyway. MRSA. Staph has developed a resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics over the course of a relatively short time. How would that have happened without evolution?

I know, I know, you're screaming about needing to see one species evolve into another (even though THAT is not required to prove evolution, all that is required is a mutation that becomes dominant over time, such as MRSA or elephants losing their tusks, or fish becoming immune to some toxic waste). I just wanted to give you an example that you'd likely heard of there.
How about http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread572409/pg1 ? King demoiselle recently evolved into three different species. Midas cichlid evolving into other species within the past century. There have been a number of instances where speciation has occured in the laboratory, apple maggot flies for example. New species of plants have been observed (O. gigas, is an example) . Pasterniani's experiments with corn.

Then there are the Central European blackcap and Galapagos ground finch, which have undergone natural speciation which scientists have been able to observe. There have been other birds whose names I don't remember and I believe a species of lizard. It's happened.

There is the cell. It's been around for 3.5 billion years, as per evolutionists. It has factories in it such as a DNA sequencer, molecular folder, transport mechanisms, along with the programming data to run everythin

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[MadFan]

It's a simple word to number conversion, it's not like scrabble where z=10, u =1, q=4.
Yes you could debate if this is just all made up but the fact is it is still there adding up.

But you could argue the Genesis PI value is a magic formula.
If you dont know about it, It's a formula for the first verse is something like this from my memory:
(sum of letters * product of letters) / (sum of words * sum of words).

With that you get the value of 3.141 * 10 ^ 70. to my memory, (that is 10 to the power of 70).

Well a valid reply would be that is just a made up formula that very remarkably reaches a value that is recognisable, and you would be right in saying that, but...
If you do that same formula to the New Testament's main creation verse you get 2.7182 x 10 ^ 30.
E wasn't discovered until the 16th century, so it's interesting that encoded in the text that a fisherman written are these advance mathematical constants of the universe in them.

Well feel free to dismiss these observations, as you shouldn't apply theology on them, they are only what Christians say are: signatures of the spirit.
There must be other locations this simple code is used but I haven't looked into these types of codes enough.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[purplebear]

Sorry, faith in the living God was an completely intrinsic part of life. It was not just a passing thought as you alude to. It also was not just colloquial language as you wish it was.
Perhaps you should rethink your language. It would very much be a sign of insanity to continue calling out to God when you don't believe He even exists. Although it could still benefit your situation as He very much does exist and cares about you.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[purplebear]

The difference is that the one I refer to is an actual human, where your example is a part of a human.

How can someone that was not killed prior to birth even consider advocating for the killing of others prior to birth? It makes that person into a hypocrit.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[fullmetal55]

Can anybody read?

really? third reply to this that completely misses the point? and then argues with me on the merits of one alternate theory being way out to lunch...

I SAID... What I hope comes of this is ... allowing your mind to be open to other possibilities.

NOT TO CREATIONISM BUT TO F***ING SCIENCE! Science is about knowledge not facts. Teaching science as all facts is detrimental to the development of science as a whole. There are lots of things we have theories about but no solid facts. Teaching them as facts is a bad way to teach science. I'm not talking about evolution or creationism or gravity, I'm talking simply about the processes we don't fully understand. There are literally thousands of things that don't fit with current theories, and yet we still teach those theories as being flawless facts. I'm not talking about magic fairies waving magic freaking wands here, I'm talking about genuine curiosities of science.

It's this closed mindedness on both sides of this debate that frustrate me. I'm talking specifically here about opening the minds of the religious fundies... Not opening to the theory that "We won the opening face off that means we won the game" mentality! I never said that, I criticized the creationist philosophy 3 times in my 5 line post... and yet you are the third person who missed the point. Tell me, HOW did you get to that from what I wrote? HOW? PLEASE explain this to me...

I also never said we should teach both sides, but rather we should teach that there are multiple theories. The problem that this creates is of course testing. we'd have to have a completely different method of grading students. Because we can't have a multiple choice question with one right answer. Science just doesn't work that way all the time. Theories are proven and disproven all the time. Science is about the discovery the learning the testing... Not philosophy. Philosophy has no place in science.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[zlives]

i was gonna suggest that one sun is the primary center of the universe and the second sun revolves around it as well as the rest of the universe... however
"You can hand in your geek card to the Stormtrooper upon exiting the premises." was too funny to ignore :)

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[X86Daddy]

I've heard a very well educated "anti-atheist-agenda" speaker talk about this. He was a brilliant speaker. We talked a little afterwards, because I found him interesting... he knew enough medical, biological science, and so did I, that he couldn't actually use bullshit reasoning denying how DNA works, etc... so he acknowledged that "microevolution" happens "of course." What these kind are actually denying is Geology, not Biology. Their premise is that, sure, DNA works, and there's a lot of useful science there, so they won't deny that with an audience who gets biology... they'll simply state that those mechanics can't apply to humans evolving from other creatures, because that just couldn't happen in 6000 years and they're correct! And since geologic science is not as hot of a topic right now, and generally drier than biology, they can fool more people... I'm guessing a lot fewer people can articulate why we know the earth has a lot more than 6000 years of history than there are people who get the concepts of DNA and inherited traits and natural selection.

Geology is the current target of denial by the crafty charlatans... Denying the mechanics of evolution is just the arena for complete morons and low-grade charlatans.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Ol Olsoc]

Can anybody read?

really? third reply to this that completely misses the point?

Very respectfully here, if you post something, and everyone "misses the point", it is just possible that you aren't really making the point.

just sayin'

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[jgoemat]

If you think humans are objectively better than ants, then you are wrong. If you think humans are in some "objective" way better than bacteria, then you are wrong. If you think someone without sickle cell anemia is objectively better than someone without, or vice-versa, then you are wrong. There is no goal bringing evolution to a "higher" or more perfect level, no perfect DNA for a particular environment. All life fills a niche or it goes extinct.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[jgoemat]

You still can't disprove my "Intelligent Falling" theory (IF). It simply states that an intelligent pusher has zillions of agents that push objects towards each other as if they were being pulled by some force. After all, gravity is just a theory and its weaknesses should be taught in classrooms.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Reservoir Penguin]

Maybe she did not want to flee the state of Georgia in the middle of the night leaving everything behind. Or be killed by Christian mobs.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Alex Belits]

why you are such a zealot for hate

I am not a "zealot for hate", I merely hate you and religious, willfully ignorant people like yourself. Despite common (and very useful for politicians) cultural formulas, hatred is a perfectly valid thing to have, and you richly deserve it.

religion of evolution

You do not seem to recognize that there is a reason to consider anything to be true other than blind faith. Your brain is defective, so I recommend to hurry up with getting rid of it.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Patrick Bowman]

The flip side of this is what I got in Ontario (Canada), whose curriculum 25 years ago required the teaching of creationism as well as evolution. After spending a week or so looking at all the evidence for the theory of evolution, our grade 13 biology teacher announced "I am also required to teach an alternate theory known as creationism. You've seen all the evidence for evolutionary theory (he went on to list it). But there are some who believe that this is all false and that god did it. It is up to you to decide which theory you find more plausible." And on to the next topic. When I read about teachers having to "teach the controversy", etc., I'm not too worried. I suspect that, even in Tennessee, a majority of science teachers have the same severe doubts about creationism as the rest of us.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[mywhitewolf]

yep, realized what you were saying 12 seconds after i posted my reply, sorry.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[dudpixel]

I didn't think I'd need to qualify it, but what if I said "our understanding of gravity is quite vague compared to what there is to know about it".

And our current understanding is only a model (and indeed, thats probably all we can do), and is fairly primitive when you compare it to how much we know we dont know (I hope that makes sense).

To explain it better:

A = what we know
B = what we know we dont know
C = what we dont know

I would suggest that when talking of gravity, B is at least as big as A, and the sum of B+C makes A = "not much". Hence my original statement.

I'm not trying to make a point about the article, just saying that the analogy chosen probably didn't support the claim being made.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[dudpixel]

Your statement shows that you've already blocked your ears and your shouting "la la la la" at the top of your voice so that you cant hear me...but I'm going to reply anyway and say that its more like the Bible claiming 2 + 2.1 = ~4 (in the absense of any way to measure it or represent it more accurately). And yes, we are taking it literally. And no we dont have to take everything literally, because we dont do that in our daily lives anyway.

Another example:
Let's say you have 5 hammers and some asked you to throw half of them away. What would you do? Ok, so that seems real obvious. Suppose you had 41 hammers and you were told to throw half of them away. I reckon you'd keep 21, or 20. but probably not 20.5.

Do we need to spell out that Genesis 6 isn't about a maths lesson?

If I said it was raining cats and dogs would you take it literally? No. So does that mean you shouldn't take anything else I say literally either?
We're all intelligent creatures - I'm pretty sure we can use our heads and work out based on the context of what is being said, whether something is intended literally or not.

I hope I'm not mistaken in that assumption.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[Uberbah]

Your statement shows that you've already blocked your ears and your shouting "la la la la" at the top of your voice so that you cant hear me..

Do you use a cannon or a howitzer for your projection? The Bible is either Literally True, or it's not.

Adam and Eve literally were really the first humans on earth...or they weren't.

Moses, acting through God, literally did part the Red Sea...or he didn't.

Planting different crops side by side is literally a deadly sin...or it isn't.

The circumference of a circle is literally three times the square of its radius...or it isn't.

Now you can "la la la" as much as you want, but anyone can falsify the Biblical version of Pi in a few seconds with a round object and a shoe lace. And if you have to admit that part of the Bible isn't Literally True, then you have to admit the same for Adam and Eve, parting the waters, different crops side by side, and the rest.

If I said it was raining cats and dogs would you take it literally? No.

Are you claiming that is a Literal Truth and that it really is raining cats and dogs? No. Are there fundies who insist that the Bible is Literal Truth? Yes. Would you have issues if you were literally claiming that it was literally raining cats and dogs from the sky? Rhetorical question.

Not sure what part of "the Bible is either Literally True or just a bunch of stories open to interpretation" is hard to understand.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[virg_mattes]

Regrettably we are playing with evolution, or more specifically, natural selection to the detriment of our species.

I hear this sort of thing a lot, and it's simple crap. There's nothing regrettable about increasing survivability in the human population, because humans no longer adapt best based on physical attributes. Brain power is king at the human level of sentience, and keeping people like Stephen Hawking alive and functioning does more to advance our species than maintaining his gene pattern will degrade it. Humanity is long past the time when "survival of the fittest" applied to our physical bodies.

Virg

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[trum4n]

Then why are so many of "God's Words" wrong when compared to facts?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[PoolOfThought]

The "theory of evolution" is still a "theory". The "theory of evolution" discussed here is specifically a theory of how man came to be, not whether evolution is real or not. Everyone (including the Tennessee educators) agrees that things evolve, but, right or wrong, not everyone agrees that man was evolved through the same process by chance.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[registrations_suck]

Your understanding of "theory" when applied to a scientific context is no better than that of the creationists.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[virg_mattes]

The only route by which you can use your argument to label mine invalid is to demonstrate that all of the things you name are more of a detrimental force than diversity of thought is a benefit. You haven't done that in any meaningful way with your one-sentence dismissal, so your rebuttal fails to rebut. I point to the significant and sustained growth of the human population and our immense adaptation to our world to back up my side of the equation. What say you?

Virg

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[dudpixel]

I solved the riddle - have a read of it again.

Its shaped like a cup.

Its 10 cubits from one edge OF THE BRIM to the other, but the line placed around it is not around the top, its slightly below the top. the cup is curved, so there you go 30 cubits exactly.

Can we move on now?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[dudpixel]

and for the record, I did not need to tell you that I was speaking figuratively about "raining cats and dogs" - it is implied. Same with the bible - it doesn't need to spell it out when things are literal or not. It should be obvious. So when you're reading about these measurements - its literal - but when you're reading about monsters and dragons in revelation, they are clearly symbolic and figurative. its not that hard.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[dudpixel]

So its shaped like a cup.

The brim is 10 cubits across. and there's a line around the side (slightly below the top) which is 30 cubits long.

If the line was around the very top, sure 31.4 cubits. But it wasn't. Clearly the line sat just below the top - where the circumference was shorter.

Careful bible reading. You're welcome.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[dudpixel]

what if the item was shaped like a cup (which it was) and the line was not around the very top, but slightly below the top?

30 cubits seems about right then.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Which explains why Newt took Georgia better than all the political analysts laid end to end.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[purplebear]

Please feel free to cite what parts of God's Word is wrong when compared to man made "facts".

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[trum4n]

For example....any thing Rick Santorum says.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[purplebear]

You know I started to answer each one of these statements individually. I have decided that is not needed. I don't need to cover the differences in language in tanslations or limitations of culture of the time. This will be labeled as a troll response, but:

1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

And:

Ephesians 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

These passages tell us God is much smarter than us, and that understanding of His divine Word only comes by Spirit revelation.

Not the answer you're looking for, but the truth.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[purplebear]

Rick Santorum is not God, nor does he respresent the inerrant Word of God.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[CPTreese]

My only critique of your statement is that you equivocate the term "evolution". I agree that the stanchest creationist believes in micro-evolution they do not agree in macro-evolution two entirely different concepts

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[poly_pusher]

I can't tell you how many people I have met who view evolution in the 19th century "blacksmiths son" perspective. It seems the moment you say "mutation" people assume you mean the neighbors kid suddenly sprouting horns and the gaining the ability to fly. For this reason mutation is often excluded from peoples consideration and they see evolution as intentionally pushing an organism being better suited. But that is a "blacksmiths son" perspective, that if a blacksmith were to father a child then the child would have one arm more powerful than the other, because the parent has become better suited to their environment with that one strong arm. But that isn't how it happens. It is hard to wrap your mind around the idea that very small mutations are naturally selected or excluded based on whether they just happen to better suit an organism. It happens on time scales we just can't perceive. This is another reason why many creationist view people who believe in evolution as adopting a religion. Because to them it is a belief based on faith and not scientifically reasoned.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[morgauxo]

You can't pass on what you don't have.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[morgauxo]

My understanding of that is that non-biological 'bubbles' that are very similar to cell membranes have been found. So have self-reproducing molecules much simpler than either DNA or RNA which act as a catalyst to the same reactions that create more of them similar to the mal-folded proteins which cause prion diseases.

One possible solution to your question is that some of the self-replicating molecules 'found' a good, well protected environment within some of those 'bubbles'. For some time they coexisted, kind of like hermit crabs and the items they find to use as shells. (Not to imply anything like the hermit crab in complexity.) Natural selection however made the molecules trend towards being better suited to 'find' and occupy the bubbles eventually leading to one which could cause it's bubble to divide and replace the missing material to form two.

Similarly others developed their ability to 'find' the bubbles, including by taking over already occupied ones. Thus, the cell and viri originate together and continue to swap genes back and forth even today.

Everything else would just be a very long time's worth of addons.

I don't know if this is how it happened or not. It's my interpretation of something I read and only about 75% understood, and that article was only speculation. It helped me to get past the question you just asked and see that there is at least one way it is possible.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[morgauxo]

By agents you mean noodley appendages right?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[morgauxo]

If that were true then how would we get multiple species within a single environment? Granted, members of some species would end up colonizing other environments of the world, evolve and then migrate back. I suppose this kind of mixing coupled with climate change would give us multiple species but I doubt that a completely deterministic model of evolution could get us anything near the number and diversity of species that we have.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[morgauxo]

That's the definition of those two terms which I was taught. (In a Christian, Creationist school btw)

But it seems like I often see articles linked to here and elsewhere that 'species' are discussed that are really minor variations and still quite capable of interbreeding. Are there two definitions of the word species?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[morgauxo]

I was taught (in a private school) that macroevolution couldn't even happen in the billions of years that scientists say the Earth has existed let alone the 6000 that about half of the school believed. I'm not arguing this is the case, only pointing out that they say this too.

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[wisnoskij]

I believe subspecies do require distinct environments. Lifeforms that are 99.999999% the same that come in contact with each other mate and there is no way to evolve down separate paths.
Eventually they change enough that when they do live in the same place they do not interbreed and that is how we get multiple species in the same place.

And even if there was one or more steps in evolution that were completely random that would make no difference to the result. You still could not have two subspecies emerge in the same geographic location, because they would breed in the span of a single generation and become one.

To have two subspecies emerge in the same location you would need them to somehow mostly ignore a all potential mates based on genealogy, which is not beneficial at all.

So where is this indeterministic step? where does true randomness come into play in evolution?

Re:There's Your Problem Right There

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

"Theory of Evolution" well not actually a theory, but a set of established and substantiated principles. The confusion is that the "Theory" part actually only refers to the shape of the various trees, with the ideas of which branches came from which other branches and when. The Fossil record helps clarify the tree structure and relationships, now with DNA and other evidence we refine that picture more and more. But the principles of evolution, like mutation and natural selection are not theories or called into scientific question. But the Creationist trumpet "Theory" "Theory" to refer to the undisputed principals of the process of evolution. This is the intellectual dishonesty that is agenda driven that I find most disagreeable and anti-intellectual and anti-progress.

But we know that evolution works and I believe that this set of beliefs do not have long term survival value for those people adopting those beliefs, so social evolution should take care of that intellectual cul de sac in due time. Of course that attitude coupled with the hypocracy of accepting science for those things that benefit you and rejection those (like global warming) for those you have a irrational belief in may in and of itself provide some survival benefit. Probably they do in the short time so you can live in one of those communities that do not treat dis-believers kindly.

Finite wisdom of a state legislature

[LostCluster]

Why do politicians think they know more than scientists about reaching biology? They're wrong on this one... to much science to say evolution happened and the only support the creationists have is one book that's proven to be mostly fiction. If Adam and Eve were the first humans, then who wrote the biblical story?

Re:Finite wisdom of a state legislature

[SuricouRaven]

Because to them, it isn't about science. It's about two things far more important to them. Religion, and willing popular support.

Re:Finite wisdom of a state legislature

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I subscribe to Creationism, but your logic is flawed. By definition a story about some event cannot be written until after the event. So to say that somebody before Adam & Eve had to write the story about Adam and Eve is a flawed argument. Since the story of Adam and Even is not presented as a prophesy, but rather a story of what was, it was by definition written after the event (real or imagined).
To put in other terms, nobody can write a story about your life until after you are born, and lived some portion of that life.

Re:Finite wisdom of a state legislature

[Anonymous Coward]

Because all those scientist are elitist.

If, "I have mountains of observational evidence for a well considered theory, you have magic stories, therefore we should not teach your silliness in a classroom as if it resembles science.", is elitist... then at least it's well founded elitism.

Here's to hoping that this absurd bit of legislation opens the door for good teachers to finally, openly hammer these ridiculous superstitions in the classroom, without fear of reprisal.

You wanted your batshit theories in the classroom, and went as far as to use government intervention to get it there? Fine. Now you have to deal with having its long list of scientific inadequacies laid bare before your children.

Obviously it was designed for state sanctioned religious indoctrination in our schools, but it just might have a silver lining.

Re:Finite wisdom of a state legislature

[Que914]

To borrow from Robert Heinlein, because of the false notion that Democracy means that my ignorance is just as valid as your knowledge.

Re:Finite wisdom of a state legislature

[ILongForDarkness]

Generally religions have a claim of divine inspiration of their books. My understanding is most of the western religions the orthodox view is that the Pentateuch (first 5 books in the christian canon) were inspired by good and written by Moses and successors (obviously Moses wouldn't have been the author of things that happened after he died). Once you have an omnipresent, omniscient and eternal being in the picture anything goes. That is one of the reason that a lot of scientists (me included) are frustrated by religious "debates" because it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, and if that thing that is supposed to exist can make anything happen than you can't generate any experiment to prove anything because nothing stops God from just changing the rules at any time. That is why the scientific method is usually to do the opposite: assume something doesn't exist until you have evidence that it does.

Re:Finite wisdom of a state legislature

[Dr. Manhattan]

"Science" teaches that the Earth is round. Why not teach the controversy?

Re:Finite wisdom of a state legislature

[theNAM666]

>Why do politicians think they know more than scientists about reaching biology?

I suggest you take a wee glance at the dear old white gentlemen who dominate the Tennessee legislature.

There's the guy who recently attempted to ban the practice of the Muslim faith (failed), but who did succeed on the pressing issue of banning dogs in the front seats of cars.

Then we have the dear gentleman from Chattanooga who sought to ban transgender individuals from bathrooms (while threatening to murder any transgender folk he came into contact with).

There's nothing quite like the representative who drafted the "guns in bars" legislation-- and who a few months later, was caught driving home drunk from one of those bars, handgun beside him on the seat of this pickup.

Don't even get me started on the Governor and that crowd.

I assure you, however, that these elevated gentlemen are not discriminating against scientists or anyone. They certainly believe that they know better than anyone and everyone else, without prejudice to learning, education, experience or any other form of knowledge.

Re:Finite wisdom of a state legislature

[k6mfw]

because they are politicos and dammit if they want pi to equal 3.000 then so be it. Incredible as it may sound there have been situations like this (sorry I don't have citations).

Incidently TN continued banning evolution in school studies until Soviets launched Sputnik. Outcries were USA falling behind USSR in sciences so TN school boards figured they need to teach evolution. Well it has been more the 50 years since Sputnik, 20 years since collapse of USSR so that "falling behind" argument is stale (uhmm there is PRC, leave that for another thread).

While they want to promote ID and creationism, those are from Christian religions. What do the Muslims think of all this? Why not have some of their theories? Looks like it can lead to some heated discussions.

I see the tagline inherit-the-wind-II, how about a movie? What actors should cast to play the parts? Last remake had George C. Scott and Jack Lemmon.

Re:Finite wisdom of a state legislature

[jader3rd]

If Adam and Eve were the first humans, then who wrote the biblical story?

While this has no bearing on the topic at hand, the answer to your question is: Moses. As a prophet, Moses had revelation to the spiritually relevant aspects of how the children of Isreal came to be. So he wrote it down and taught it to them. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible.
Now if you don't believe that Moses could have had divine inspiration, then Moses must have assembled some myth's based off of what some of the children of Isreal could kind of remember from their pre-Egypt days.

Re:Finite wisdom of a state legislature

[webheaded]

That is actually a really good point. We have no such law in AZ that I'm aware but my biology teacher went over all of that stuff. He went over evolution, creationism, and then basically pointed out how ridiculous creationism is. Not to sound dramatic, but that class was life changing. That's when I decided I was agnostic and then eventually atheist. Shitty science teachers will continue doing the same bad teaching they were doing and good teachers will use this as an opportunity to lay out all the flaws in creationism. Or at least, that's what I would assume.

Re:Finite wisdom of a state legislature

[Ihmhi]

To put in other terms, nobody can write a story about your life until after you are born, and lived some portion of that life.

Okay. But surely something divinely-inspired would make a hell of a lot more fucking sense, what with the contradictions and absurdities and all.

For the interested, check out The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. It points out all of the ridiculous and/or horrible shit that exists in the Bible. And they're fair, too - they also shit all over the Koran and other religious texts.

Re:Finite wisdom of a state legislature

[LordLimecat]

If Adam and Eve were the first humans, then who wrote the biblical story?

Genesis? Traditionally understood to be authored by Moses. Its a narrative, not a first person account.

Whats with all the questions / accusations that are answered with about 5 seconds of google- or wiki-fu?

Re:Finite wisdom of a state legislature

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

one book that's proven to be mostly fiction

I agree with everything you said except that. There is much in the Bible that has been proven correct after being doubted for decades, if not hundreds of years.

Actually doubting ANYTHING about the Bible got you a ticket as guest of honor at the auto da fe for centuries. It's only in the last few decades that it has been reasonably safe to publicly express doubts about the Bible, and there are plenty of places in the US where it is still not safe to do so.

Re:Finite wisdom of a state legislature

[jedwidz]

God knows we can't handle the truth.

Re:Finite wisdom of a state legislature

[Elaugaufein]

So where did God come from then ? I mean if you're going to posit that man has to have come from somewhere and that was God (as opposed to evolution because something as complex as man requires design) then it seems to follow that something as complex as God also requires design.

Science should be taught in science class.

[Kenja]

Just as math should be taught in math class and so on. If you want to teach religion in a class dedicated to the subject, I'm OK with that. But it would need to cover ALL religions and beliefs, which I think people would throw the hissy fit to end all hissy fits over.

Re:Science should be taught in science class.

[CanHasDIY]

But it would need to cover ALL religions and beliefs, which I think people would throw the hissy fit to end all hissy fits over.

Only during Qu'ran Week.

Re:Science should be taught in science class.

[compro01]

I dunno, Satanist week might be even more entertaining.

Re:Science should be taught in science class.

[CanHasDIY]

I dunno, Satanist week might be even more entertaining.

Considering that seems to be the main religious preference in the Washington, D.C. area, I doubt there would be much controversy.

Re:Science should be taught in science class.

[Myria]

If you want to teach religion in a class dedicated to the subject, I'm OK with that. But it would need to cover ALL religions and beliefs, which I think people would throw the hissy fit to end all hissy fits over.

I went to public high school in Orange County, California, and that's how it was. We had a social science class where we were taught about many different religions, both modern and historical. We read parts of Genesis and the Qur'an. It wasn't just the Abrahamic religions, either.

Re:Science should be taught in science class.

[Kjella]

Just as math should be taught in math class and so on. If you want to teach religion in a class dedicated to the subject, I'm OK with that. But it would need to cover ALL religions and beliefs, which I think people would throw the hissy fit to end all hissy fits over.

Everyone should have been through the major world religions in social science class, for its impact on society and human behavior. It's pretty hard to avoid religion in history class too, in that context you don't need to cover FSM since it's had no followers and no significant impact on history but we did cover dead religions like greek, roman and norse mythology. Whether or not you believe in a religion or not, it's pretty bad to be ignorant about what billions of other people believe and that is apparently important to them.

Re:Science should be taught in science class.

[Mr. Firewall]

Better yet, Beltane Festival time!

Re:Science should be taught in science class.

[shutdown -p now]

It is considered highly derogatory in Satanism (at least the LaVeyan, CoS kind) to leech off someone else, so I find that unlikely.

*sigh*

[webheaded]

That education chalk board picture where 2+2=5 has never been seemed so relevant.

Some day, I'm hoping that all these retarded laws get bitch slapped back. Is it just that I'm young or are these people become more shrill and outspoken about this kind of idiocy? I'm only 25 and I'm hoping this is just a phase before we inevitably tell them all the shut the hell up and move on with things.

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

They should also start teaching the Biblically-correct value of pi, which is 3.0.

Seriously, go check 1 Kings 7:23, it's right there. Why is nobody teaching the controversy? Why are our children forced by the government into being indoctrinated in the non-integer value of pi that was popularized by some Greek pagan?

Re:*sigh*

[The Moof]

However, when you sum them, you would add the measured values (including the estimated decimal value)

Emphasis mine. That's not what a '=' means in mathematics. Equal means equal, not an approximation. There is an approximation symbol ('wavy equal sign') that should be used when approximating values in mathematics like you describe. You might thank the chemistry teacher, but your math teacher is probably not too happy.

Re:*sigh*

[superdave80]

Wow, I'm trying to figure out the best way to list the things wrong with this.

If you measure two values of 2.3 and 2.4, both measured to one significant digit,

Um, 2.3 and 2.4 have two significant digits.

However, when you sum them, you would add the measured values (including the estimated decimal value).

Your original numbers are either measurements or estimates, not both.

If you measure values of 2.3 and 2.4, why would you ever round them to 2? Either your measurement is accurate to tenths or it isn't.

Let's say we do your rounding (for whatever reason). Then 2+2=4. Period.

You still only have one significant digit, so you have to round that value to 5.

You never had one significant digit, you had two.

A scientist needs to know how to take measurements and how to perform math on those measurements.

I agree, and I pray you never become a scientist.

Special thanks to Mr. Nance, my high school chemistry teacher.

Thanks to Mr. Nance, my high school chemistry special teacher.

There, I fixed that for you.

Re:*sigh*

[compro01]

Some day, I'm hoping that all these retarded laws get bitch slapped back. Is it just that I'm young or are these people become more shrill and outspoken about this kind of idiocy? I'm only 25 and I'm hoping this is just a phase before we inevitably tell them all the shut the hell up and move on with things.

Laws identical to this have been consistently struck down since Daniel v. Waters in 1975, which was also regarding a Tennessee law.

They keep putting them back up regardless.

Re:*sigh*

[residieu]

Using Significant figures to track the propagation of errors is Significantly easier than the other methods, though. They're a good first method to teach students about how to think about precision.

Just like you start teaching things like the Ideal Gas Law. There are better gas laws, but they're harder for a beginning student to learn.

Re:*sigh*

[Mr. Firewall]

Some day, I'm hoping that all these retarded laws get bitch slapped back. Is it just that I'm young or are these people become more shrill and outspoken about this kind of idiocy? I'm only 25 and I'm hoping this is just a phase before we inevitably tell them all the shut the hell up and move on with things.

You'll have a bit of a wait. IIRC it took Christendom something like 300 years to finally admit that the Earth really does revolve around the Sun. At that rate, it will be about another 150 years or so before they admit the reality of evolution.

You MIGHT live long enough...

Re:*sigh*

[tehcyder]

Yes, and if you rounded them both up to the nearest ten, you'd have 10+10=5 (that you measured).
And if you rounded down to the nearest square number you'd have 1+1=5 ( that you measured).

I thik Mr Nance was pulling your leg.

Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

...require any science taught in schools to have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis.

Evolution qualifies, creationism doesn't.

Astronomy qualifies, astrology doesn't.

Oh, and FWIW, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming *doesn't* qualify, unless of course some brave soul would like to make a clear falsifiable hypothesis statement for it :)

Re:Simple solution...

[SJHillman]

What about an interdisciplinary course covering phrenology and alchemy. Then we could have gold dandruff!

Re:Simple solution...

[Laser Lou]

Oh, and FWIW, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming *doesn't* qualify, unless of course some brave soul would like to make a clear falsifiable hypothesis statement for it :)

Rising temperatures are not falsifiable? Hmm..

Re:Simple solution...

[olsmeister]

Apparently those Tennessee lawmakers haven't heard of Russell's teapot.

Re:Simple solution...

[GameboyRMH]

Global warming relies heavily on the greenhouse effect, that's falsifiable.

You won't get anything so simple that covers the entire global warming theory:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=385

Sometimes people ask "what would it take to falsify the man-made global warming theory?". Well, basically it would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong, because that's what the theory is based on. This fundamental physics has been scrutinized through scientific experiments for decades to centuries.

Re:Simple solution...

[dward90]

Global warming certainly qualifies by any realistic definition of a hypothesis. You might disagree with the hypothesis, but it's at least as falsifiable as Evolution.

Contributed to, at least in part, by human activity, a steady increase in global average temperature will have negative effects on the environment and human society at large.

It's possible that you're talking about some ridiculous exaggeration of that ("OMG we're all gonna burn up in flames because Tom's car only gets 12 MPG!!"), but GW is a pretty clear statement that has plenty of measurable criteria. You can be pedantic and demand exact definitions for human contribution, temperature increase, and whether negative effects are caused by the former, but all are still clearly testable.

It's most definitely science. Much of the disagreement about it comes on disputing the validity of data acquired and how it's interpreted. However, the fact that data is being acquired and interpreted, and the fact that it is under scrutiny, is what makes the entire process scientific and worthwhile in the first place.

Re:Simple solution...

[Kenja]

The non-falsifiable argument gets tossed around a lot and has never been explained to my satisfaction.
1. Average temperatures are rising
2. The rise in temperatures is due to so called 'greenhouse gasses'.
3. The increase in greenhouse gasses is caused by human action.
All of the above seems falsifiable to me. As are the corollary items such as number 1 causing changes in weather, melting of ice caps etc.

Re:Simple solution...

[sconeu]

I think the problem is the "anthropogenic" part.

Re:Simple solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or reverse phrenology... Do you want one lump or two to cure your ADHD?

Re:Simple solution...

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

I believe we should apply the principals of reverse phrenology to theses creationist idiots.
http://bbd.soup.io/post/125773535/Reverse-phrenology-n-Changing-peoples-characters-and

Re:Simple solution...

[trout007]

I think alchemy is now covered under nuclear physics. And the philosopher's stone is now a nuclear reactor.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

Rising temperatures happened well before humanity existed. We've had global warming and global cooling and global staying the same for the entire history of the planet.

The question is, what observations would convince you that rising temperatures are due to natural variation, and not human activity (much less that they'll be catastrophic)?

Natural climate change is the null hypothesis (since climate changed well before humanity came into play). CAGW, which cites both warm temperatures and cold temperatures as "consistent" with their hypothesis, does not make any falsifiable predictions.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

#2, #3 - what observations, past, present or future, would falsify those hypotheses?

After all, rising temperatures happen all the time (as do falling temperatures). Ice core records actually show a *lag* between temperature changes and CO2 changes - which turns causality around on its head.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

Global warming relies heavily on the greenhouse effect, that's falsifiable.

Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming also relies heavily on the existence of humans, and that's falsifiable too. However, the mere existence of humans doesn't imply in any sort of way that they much be the cause of catastrophic global warming :)

Heck, astrology relies heavily on the orbits of the planets, and that's falsifiable too - but you'll never find a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis for astrology, now will you :)

Well, basically it would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong, because that's what the theory is based on.

The fundamentals of CO2 physics in no way force us to believe that CO2 is an overwhelming driver of climate, nor that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophe on any timescale. Extrapolating a complex hypothesis from fundamental physics requires a bunch of steps, *each one* which must be subject to strict scrutiny and falsifiability.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

You might disagree with the hypothesis, but it's at least as falsifiable as Evolution.

Name a single set of global average temperature and global average CO2 observations, past, present or future, that would falsify Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

For evolution, it's simple - find a modern rabbit fossil in the precambrian.

a steady increase in global average temperature will have negative effects on the environment and human society at large.

What observations would falsify that hypothesis (regardless of the cause of warming)? Could we look to warmer periods in human history, and colder periods in human history, and measure negative effects?

However, the fact that data is being acquired and interpreted, and the fact that it is under scrutiny, is what makes the entire process scientific and worthwhile in the first place.

Lots of astrologers acquire planetary and star data, and scrutinize it thoroughly - that doesn't make it scientific. Science starts off with the falsifiable hypothesis, and thus far, you haven't explained what observations, past, present or future, that would make you revisit your basic premise.

Re:Simple solution...

[GameboyRMH]

Extrapolating a complex hypothesis from fundamental physics requires a bunch of steps, *each one* which must be subject to strict scrutiny and falsifiability.

And indeed each one is falsifiable and "climate skeptics" have been attacking them all to find a weak spot to place their chisel for years, so far without success.

Re:Simple solution...

[Ihmhi]

Evolution qualifies, creationism doesn't.

Astronomy qualifies, astrology doesn't.

I disagree - but not for the reason that immediately pops into your head.

One of the things I learned about in grade school was alchemy. It was the (incredibly misguided) precursor to science. Your above examples are also precursors to their real sciences. I think it's important to note how we got here and just how wrong we were, such as with creationism and evolution. "We thought all of this stuff was put here by some kind of mystical being, but for the most part that's wrong and here's why."

Re:Simple solution...

[tendrousbeastie]

Point 1 seems to be an issue of pure data. The only objections would be those about how it is measured.

Point 2 is just a statement, which is fine. It might be true or it might not be, but it hasn't been presented with any evidence, just as a statement.

Point 3 follows the same arguments as point 2.

For the sake of this debate let's assume point 1 is true, according to some universally accepted method of measuring average temperatures.

For the rest to be a proper scientific theory, in the typically accepted use of the term, it would need to mathematically model the observed data such that is can describe events in terms of the theory. It should then also make predictions about non-observed events, so that the theory can be proved not-completely-wrong.

The prediction thing is vital, because there are an almost infinite (x?) number of theories that can be invented that do describe the observable data, but not many that can predict new data. I can make up anything I want that can't be disproved (almost all of which would be complete nonsense - "evolution happens because a special magic in-detectable high-tec alien manipulates the DNA of every animal at birth to be every so slightly different from its parents in a way that appears to be consistent with natural selection": stupid, but not necessary possible to prove false) , but there are a very few number of theories I can invent that can make accurate predictions.

 

Re:Simple solution...

[skine]

If the temperatures start going down, then this would falsify global warming.

Re:Simple solution...

[compro01]

They haven't heard of Epperson v. Arkansas, Edwards v. Aguillard, Daniel v. Waters, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, or McLean v. Arkansas either.

Re:Simple solution...

[FrootLoops]

A decrease in global average temperature and CO2 observations would falsify the hypothesis. An alien sensor log recording relevant data over the last, say, million years could also hypothetically test (and reject) the "anthropogenic" part. Are you actually asking for human-obtainable data that could falsify the hypothesis? As far as I'm aware, that's not what most people mean when they bring up the falsifiability criterion.

Re:Simple solution...

[cyberchondriac]

Nuclear reactors grant immortality? I'm heading right down to Salem NJ now! ;)

Re:Simple solution...

[RKThoadan]

I've always loved that bit. It's as though we're only going to intervene for man-made problems. If we do find a killer asteroid are they just going to say "We didn't cause that so we're not going to do anything about it!"

Even if they could prove categorically that global warming was completely natural I know I'd still want to fight it!

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

I think you misunderstand - the creationist viewpoint does not allow for any observation to contradict it (i.e., God can do *anything*, and fabricate *any* evidence). The natural selection viewpoint *does* allow for observation to contradict it (i.e., a modern rabbit fossil in the precambrian).

It is a *weakness* of creationism that *all* observations are consistent with its rationale. It is a *strength* of evolution that there are possible observations that would falsify it.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

Name each falsifiable step between the fundamental physics of CO2 spectrum absorption, and the idea that humanity's CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic global warming.

If you *don't* specify them (say, like astrologists who claim Mars has an influence on Pisces, but can't list all of the influences out), then you're simply hand waving. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Yes, all things kept static, adding CO2 will add a bit of positive warming. But jumping from there to "CO2 is now the primary driver of global average temperature (although it wasn't in the past), and it's all because of humans, and the consequences are going to be dire" is a leap of faith, not of science.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

Your above examples are also precursors to their real sciences.

Fair enough, thinking about something without the scientific method can be an important thing - I'll grant you that. But in order for something to be truly scientific, we must start with the falsifiable hypothesis statement. This is a high bar to reach (unattainable by say, homeopathy, astrology, or catastrophic anthropogenic global warming), but it is an *important* bar to have.

The problem here is that we've failed to teach people what the *foundation* of science is. It's not consensus, and it's not authority, and it's certainly not peer review -> it is the falsifiable hypothesis statement.

Now, without it, yes, you can talk about interesting things - but science, it ain't.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

First off, the globe warms, and the globe cools, always has always will. There is no hypothesis thus far that insists that the globe will continuously warm from now on.

That being said, for those people who insist that post 1950 global warming is because of humans, and that it is going to yield catastrophe by 2100, periods of cooling are simply excused away - temperatures could go down because of ENSO/PDO/Pinatubo, and the people who believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming would simply use that as an ad hoc special pleading, and insist that the last 17 years of cooling are just an expected pause before warming *really* takes off!

Which of course, is a big red flag that the whole idea is pseudo-science, not real science. A hypothesis which can explain *everything* explains *nothing*.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

A decrease in global average temperature and CO2 observations would falsify the hypothesis.

Be specific. How much of a decrease? Over how much time? What if CO2 continues to rise, and global average temperature doesn't rise as *much* as it was predicted?

And then, what about the "catastrophic" part? How do you measure that? What would falsify that?

An alien sensor log recording relevant data over the last, say, million years could also hypothetically test (and reject) the "anthropogenic" part.

So maybe say, ice core records which show CO2 lagging temperature changes? :) Not exactly alien technology, but a possible proxy for historical data :)

Are you actually asking for human-obtainable data that could falsify the hypothesis?

Yes, proxy data or direct measurements that would falsify the hypothesis, past, present or future.

Re:Simple solution...

[tgibbs]

Rising temperatures happened well before humanity existed. We've had global warming and global cooling and global staying the same for the entire history of the planet.

Or to make a similar argument, "Forest fires happen all the time from lightning strikes, so that forest fire cannot be due to me throwing my lit cigarette into a pile of dead leaves." Perhaps you can spot the fallacy when the same argument is placed in another context.

The question is, what observations would convince you that rising temperatures are due to natural variation, and not human activity (much less that they'll be catastrophic)?

Quite simply, identify the source of the natural variation and provide a plausible mechanism whereby it could produce such a large and prolonged increase in temperature. All this has been done for increased temperatures due to human CO2 emissions. We have the radiative physics, we have the calculation of the expected effect, we have the measurements of temperature changes, and it all matches. There are certainly plausible explanations for natural climate change in the past. If it's the sun (one of the sources of some past changes in climate), we should be able to detect a substantial change in solar output (but there isn't any). If it's CO2 from volcanoes, we should be able to show that the isotopic signature of the increased atmospheric CO2 matches that released by volcanoes (it doesn't). Etc.

So basically the "skeptics" (who become utterly credulous when it comes to any argument that reassures them that they don't have to worry about global warming) are asking us to believe:
1. There is some unknown source of warming that has been responsible for warming in the past (even though there are plausible explanations of past warming in terms of mechanisms that demonstrably aren't present today), and that for some unknown reason has kicked in over the last century or so (but whatever it is, it's going to stop Real Soon Now), and
2. There is some other unknown mechanism that prevents the warming that is predicted based on the physics of CO2 (and which coincidentally matches the measured warming) from taking place.

Re:Simple solution...

[GameboyRMH]

That's a monstrous task you're putting on me, I'm just one guy you know, and it's nothing you couldn't do yourself if you were really a skeptic...

You know what, you got me, it's all fake, me and every other non-denialist and scientist in the world are paid $100k per year to pretend global warming's real (the payments are laundered through government green energy investments). We're pulling metric shit-tons of CO2 out of the ground every second (or a volcano-load every ~3 days if you prefer) but somehow, it isn't warming the atmosphere or causing ocean acidification at all. We think ghosts are eating it or something.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

That's a monstrous task you're putting on me, I'm just one guy you know, and it's nothing you couldn't do yourself if you were really a skeptic...

Surely, if the science were so settled, this task would already be done by Realclimate, or skepticalscience, and you'd just give me a URL to reference :)

Isn't it interesting that you can't just send me a reference? Isn't it odd that you *believe* that such a list exists, even though you've never bothered to find it?

The way I see it, if I argue against a straw man of my own creation, you fault me for misrepresenting your position. And when I ask you to specifically represent your position, you assert that it's too hard of a task. You've got a "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition, and it simply isn't conducive to the scientific method.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

"Forest fires happen all the time from lightning strikes, so that forest fire cannot be due to me throwing my lit cigarette into a pile of dead leaves." Perhaps you can spot the fallacy when the same argument is placed in another context.

Actually, the CAGW argument is more like "Forest fires happen all the time from lightning strikes, so that a forest fire cannot be due to me driving my car, emitting CO2, causing more lightning storms, which then cause more lightning strikes, which means I'm now causing forest fires while driving to work."

You can observe a lit cigarette ignite a pile of dead leaves. You can't observe human CO2 emissions raising global average temperature (heck, you can't even observe global average temperature directly!).

Quite simply, identify the source of the natural variation and provide a plausible mechanism whereby it could produce such a large and prolonged increase in temperature

Natural climate change is the null hypothesis, it doesn't need to be proven - you're simply trying to shift the burden of proof on the negative. The argument of "gaps" is what creationists use to critique natural selection and evolution, do you really want to use the same argument as they do?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

To falsify #2, show that temperature increased with a decrease in concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere,

We've seen this in ice cores, with a lag of CO2 response to temperature.

Now that you've been falsified, are you ready to give up your belief?

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

If global warming does cause desertification of a country, that is a catastrophe to the people who live there not to other countries.

And if global warming does cause the expansion of arable land, and an increase in plant life in a country, that's a boon to the people who live there, and not to other countries.

Now, show me a falsifiable hypothesis statement. Desertification and un-desertification have happened in the past, with no relation to global average temperature. How are you going to quantify harms and boons in order to come up with a falsifiable hypothesis?

Re:Simple solution...

[dward90]

Name a single set of global average temperature and global average CO2 observations, past, present or future, that would falsify Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

You clearly have your mind made up about this, but I'll respond anyway.

A set of temperatures taken over a long period of time (say 50 years) that show a statistically significant decrease in average global temperature in addition to a significant increase in average global CO2 levels over the previous 50 years would falsify this hypothesis. It's really not that complicated. It falsifies global warming at least as much as finding a modern fossil dated to a time when it shouldn't exist falsifies evolution.

You might be making some sort of argument that science can't actually make large scale predictions about the future based on past data, which is a giant sweeping argument about the philosophy of science that I doubt you're trying to get at that here. I'll leave that possibility alone, but if that's what you're talking about, you can go argue about those meaningless definitions with someone else.

Re:Simple solution...

[Ihmhi]

I'm glad you got my point. Mainly, it's not like these things should be taught as real science, but as humanity's clumsy attempts to do something close to what we know science to be today.

It's part of the history of science and in that respect it is important. Beyond that, it is not. These are theories that have no place in a scientific setting outside of historical context.

Re:Simple solution...

[wagnerrp]

Name a single set of global average temperature and global average CO2 observations, past, present or future

If you have a set of future global average temperature and CO2 observations, I think we can nip this whole global warming thing in the bud right here and now.

Re:Simple solution...

[Mr. Firewall]

If the temperatures start going down, then this would falsify global warming.

You mean, just as they've been doing for the last ten or twelve years?

Re:Simple solution...

[tgibbs]

You can observe a lit cigarette ignite a pile of dead leaves. You can't observe human CO2 emissions raising global average temperature (heck, you can't even observe global average temperature directly!).

Yes, you can prove that a lit cigarette can ignite dry leaves. And you can easily prove that CO2 re-radiates infrared, and therefore from basic physics that it must raise global temperature.

Natural climate change is the null hypothesis, it doesn't need to be proven

You clearly don't understand what "null hypothesis" means. It is not a magic incantation that you can intone to make your favorite hypothesis exempt from the standard criteria for any scientific hypothesis--it must be physically plausible and make testable predictions.

In fact, the term "null hypothesis" has no meaning outside of statistics, and statistics does not and cannot concern itself with questions of causality. So any hypothesis regarding what causes what cannot be a null hypothesis. "Null hypothesis" has a very specific meaning within statistics. "Null" means "zero" and it denotes that the null hypothesis is always the hypothesis of zero difference or zero correlation. So there is only one null hypothesis of global climate, and that is the hypothesis that it is constant and unchanging. The null hypothesis of climate is easily disproved: changes in global temperature are statistically significant by any statistical test you choose. That's the only null hypothesis that there is, and once the null hypothesis of zero change is excluded, it is gone--something else does not become the null hypothesis. Once the null hypothesis of no change has been excluded, we enter the realm of causality, and all hypotheses of why climate has changed are evaluated on an equal basis, by the same scientific criteria.

The argument of "gaps" is what creationists use to critique natural selection and evolution, do you really want to use the same argument as they do?

Natural selection satisfies the basic requirements for a scientific theory--it is based on a physically plausible mechanism and it makes testable predictions.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

And you can easily prove that CO2 re-radiates infrared, and therefore from basic physics that it must raise global temperature.

You can easily prove that H2O re-radiates infrared, and therefore from basic physics that it must raise global temperature.

You can easily prove that black paint re-radiates infrared, and therefore from basic physics that it must raise global temperature.

You can easily prove that animal life radiates infrared, and therefore from basic physics that it must raise global temperature.

The problem, of course, is that the *quantification* of the effect of any single observation we might make in the laboratory gets completely complicated once it hits the real world.

You clearly don't understand what "null hypothesis" means. It is not a magic incantation that you can intone to make your favorite hypothesis exempt from the standard criteria for any scientific hypothesis

You do understand that you're arguing against yourself now, right? You've intoned this magic incantation to make your favorite hypothesis exempt from the standard criteria of falsifiability :)

So there is only one null hypothesis of global climate, and that is the hypothesis that it is constant and unchanging.

That's batty. We have observed millions upon billions of years of *constant change* in global climate. You're going to throw away all that precedent and insist that we go with a null hypothesis which is trivially falsified?

That's the only null hypothesis that there is, and once the null hypothesis of zero change is excluded, it is gone--something else does not become the null hypothesis.

So what you're really arguing is that if you come up with a null hypothesis that is so ludicrous it's falsifiable on its face, you can therefore *eliminate* any null hypothesis from existence, and therefore put any remotely plausible hypothesis of your own on a pedestal and worship it?

ROTFLMAO!

Okay, try again :)

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

A set of temperatures taken over a long period of time (say 50 years) that show a statistically significant decrease in average global temperature in addition to a significant increase in average global CO2 levels over the previous 50 years would falsify this hypothesis.

Okay, we've got ice core records that show a 400 - 800 year lag of CO2 to temperature, and many many periods of greater than 50 years where CO2 was rising, but temperatures were falling.

Ready to give up your belief system now that it's been falsified by your own definition?

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

The point is we can make predictions, and not only test them against historical data (ice core records, other proxies), and current, immediate data (today's global average temperature and CO2 levels), but we can also test them against *future* observations.

The way you could construct a falsifiable hypothesis is to say something like "if next year, CO2 emissions rise by 10ppm, but temperature only rises by 0.2C, our hypothesis is wrong". The problem with the anthropogenic global warming religion is that *any* future observations are simply excused with ad hoc special pleadings..similar to the ad hoc special pleadings of an astrologer who suddenly notes that because Mars was ascendant, and they didn't calculate that at the time of their predictions, that obviously things were different in reality.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

Here's a quick exercise for you: Find out the total mass of the ocean. Multiply that by the heat content of H2O. Hold that number in your left hand. Now find out the total mass of the atmosphere. Multiply that by the heat content of any gaseous element you'd like. Hold that number in your right hand. Compare the two hands.

Now wipe your hands clean and put four dollars of quarters in your left hand to represent approximately 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. Now put enough quarters in your right hand to represent the *rest* of the atmosphere. Compare the two hands.

Context *matters* :)

The fact that it's happening is an absolute certainty just by numbers. The questions we should be asking is "How fast" and "By How Much?".

It's an absolute certainty that *anything* that emits CO2, be it your aunt Bertha yawning, or a butterfly in your backyard, is causing *some* non zero, positive effect on global average temperature. And the answer to "how fast" and "by how much" is "imperceptibly slowly" and "imperceptibly positive".

So yes, the most trivial form of AGW is true, just like the most trivial form of BYBGW (back yard butterfly global warming) is true. Now come up with a falsifiable hypothesis that shows that this will happen so much and so quickly that catastrophe must ensue. Show your work :)

Re:Simple solution...

[tgibbs]

You can easily prove that H2O re-radiates infrared, and therefore from basic physics that it must raise global temperature.

As indeed it does. Indeed, modern climate models are critically dependent upon this property of water vapor. Fortunately, because water vapor condenses into rain, and achieves rapid equilibration with huge ocean reservoirs of water, human emissions of water vapor do not alter water vapor concentration (although we can indirectly increase water vapor concentration in the atmosphere by warming the climate with CO2 emissions, increasing evaporation and shifting the ocean/atmosphere equilibrium to increase atmospheric water vapor--which amplifies the warming effect of CO2). This is very elementary physics.

You can easily prove that black paint re-radiates infrared, and therefore from basic physics that it must raise global temperature.

And if we were dumping huge quantities of black paint all over the globe, to reduce its albedo, this would be a concern. But we aren't. We are, however, releasing lots of CO2, and about half of what we release is accumulating in the atmosphere.

You can easily prove that animal life radiates infrared, and therefore from basic physics that it must raise global temperature.

And this could be a concern if the earth's biomass were changing appreciably. But it isn't.

You do understand that you're arguing against yourself now, right? You've intoned this magic incantation to make your favorite hypothesis exempt from the standard criteria of falsifiability :)

On the contrary, climate models make numerous testable predictions which have been confirmed by observation. A partial list may be found here

That's batty. We have observed millions upon billions of years of *constant change* in global climate. You're going to throw away all that precedent and insist that we go with a null hypothesis which is trivially falsified?

Words have actual meanings.
Q. "How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?"
A. "Four. Calling a leg a tail does not make it one."

"Null hypothesis" has a meaning. It means "no change." That is the only thing it means. Calling your hypothesis "a null hypothesis" does not make it one, any more than it makes a tail a leg. The fact that you are engaging in this sort of special pleading reveals that at some level, you are aware that you have no actual hypothesis of "natural" climate change--it's just a magic buzzword to you. In contrast, climate science recognizes multiple physical mechanisms whereby climate can change and has changed in the past. CO2 is only one of these, and physics makes no distinction whether it is "natural" or due to human activities. A given amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere will have the same warming effect no matter where it comes from. Different physical mechanisms of climate change make different predictions which can be tested by observation.

If you want to talk real science instead of phony pseudoscience, you must think in terms of physical mechanisms. "Natural" is not a mechanism, it is just a buzzword. Which specific physical mechanism of climate change that has operated in the past do you imagine to be responsible for the current warming? What is the evidence that it is has changed in recent decades? We certainly know that CO2 has increased....

Re:Simple solution...

[GameboyRMH]

You won't find such a list for any other complex theory. I never believed that such a list existed, as in was already compiled - It is possible to make such a list, but unnecessary. Most of the steps involved are well-established physics.

Re:Simple solution...

[Elaugaufein]

2. A fall in average temperatures while greenhouse gasses remain at constant levels
3. Well we could reduce our greenhouse emissions, if they aren't effected by human action then our reduction of greenhouse emissions would have no effect (or a statistically minor effect) on the current rate of increase. Since this would require actually reducing our greenhouse emissions I doubt its going to be a popular test though.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

#2 - We've seen this before in the ice core record (in fact, we've seen a fall in average temperatures while greenhouse gases *increase* in level.

#3 - The 2008 recession has given us a sample of CO2 reduction, and there has been no measurable effect.

Now that your falsifications have been shown, are you ready to give up your beliefs?

Re:Simple solution...

[tehcyder]

Oh, and FWIW, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming *doesn't* qualify, unless of course some brave soul would like to make a clear falsifiable hypothesis statement for it :)

The available scientific evidence appears to have led to a consensus that anthropogenic global warming exists and will result in a catastrophe. So the falsifiable hypothesis would be to do nothing and wait for the catastrophe. When the catastrophe happened you would have your confirmation.

But it still wouldn't 100% prove that the theory/hypothesis/explanation was correct. Strictly speaking, no scientific hypothesis or theory can be proved correct, only incorrect.

These philosophical niceties aside, if a fucking big volcano starts to rumble, spit out rocks, leak lava or whatever, the sensible thing is to start running, not quibble about exactly when it will explode, or whether or not it might just fizzle out

Re:Simple solution...

[tehcyder]

I think the philosopher's stone would be cold fusion, wouldn't it?

Re:Simple solution...

[Laser Lou]

Doesn't natural climate change occur slowly, over thousands of years? Are you aware that the recent climate change pattern for the 20th century is much different that the historical changes? I encourage you to study this deeper, for your own benefit. It takes some skill to interpret scientific data while filtering out noise...to see the forest from the trees.

Re:Simple solution...

[tehcyder]

You're obviously right. All the research done by scientists worldwide completely overlooked the fact that there are natural climate changes as well, so it's all meaningless.

Thanks for spotting that schoolboy error.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

although we can indirectly increase water vapor concentration in the atmosphere by warming the climate with CO2 emissions, increasing evaporation and shifting the ocean/atmosphere equilibrium to increase atmospheric water vapor--which amplifies the warming effect of CO2

That's a vague assertion - and apparently based on incorrect premises:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/support-for-the-saturated-greenhouse-effect-leaves-the-likelihood-of-agw-tipping-points-in-the-cold/

"Computer models of AGW show positive feedback from water vapor by incorrectly assuming that relative humidity remains constant with warming while specific humidity increases."

We are, however, releasing lots of CO2, and about half of what we release is accumulating in the atmosphere.

Put $4 worth of quarters in your left hand. That represents 400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. Now put $9960 worth of quarters in your right hand. I'll let you guess what that represents.

What, exactly, is your definition of "lots"?

And this could be a concern if the earth's biomass were changing appreciably. But it isn't.

That's another vague assertion. Do you even *have* a biomass index for the globe?

On the contrary, climate models make numerous testable predictions which have been confirmed by observation.

You're doing it backwards. Don't tell me about the ten-thousand white swans you saw - tell me about what *black* swan would falsify your hypothesis. Climate models make numerous testable predictions which have *failed* to be observed...yet you ignore those as irrelevant?

"Null hypothesis" has a meaning. It means "no change."

No, it doesn't. Null means "no relation". We have null hypotheses about all *sorts* of things that obviously change (say, the relationship between average gas prices and stock market averages) - you are truly torturing the definition if you're blithely asserting that it means "no change".

The null hypothesis is that average global CO2 levels have no causal relationship to average global temperatures. The burden of your falsifiable hypothesis is to show that it *does* have a causal relationship, and you must consider not only *necessary* factors, but also all factors required to *sufficiently* show there is no other possible explanation.

Which specific physical mechanism of climate change that has operated in the past do you imagine to be responsible for the current warming?

What specific physical mechanism of climate change that has operated in the past do you imagine to be responsible for any other period of historical warming? Have you cataloged all of those possible mechanisms? Have you excluded all of those possible mechanisms?

Your passionate belief that you can simply wave your hands, redefine "null" to mean "72F every day, unchanging, day or night, for all of eternity", and your clever bit about "oh, and now CO2 must be correct because you haven't identified the magical "nature" leprechaun of climate change that has never existed before" is amusing, but not convincing :)

Re:Simple solution...

[tehcyder]

Sometimes people ask "what would it take to falsify the man-made global warming theory?". Well, basically it would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong, because that's what the theory is based on.

Yes, but that's not impossible so I'm buggered if I'm going to change anything merely on a probability rather than an absolute certainty!

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

It is possible to make such a list, but unnecessary. Most of the steps involved are well-established physics.

A truly pseudo-scientific statement.

All of the positions of the stars and planets are well-established physics. Yet you'll have me believe that it is possible, but unnecessary, to provide falsifiability that connects those well-established physics to astrological charts?

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is well-established physics. Yet creationists point to it as a basis for rejecting evolution (since you cannot go from disorder to order).

You need to do more than simply say "well-established physics", and claim victory. You need to have the list, and it should thoroughly disturb you that such a list has not ever been compiled.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

The available scientific evidence appears to have led to a consensus that anthropogenic global warming exists and will result in a catastrophe. So the falsifiable hypothesis would be to do nothing and wait for the catastrophe.

First of all, science isn't based on consensus. Second of all, catastrophes can happen for all sorts of reasons - why should we believe that a catastrophe in say, 50 years, *must* be caused by CO2 emissions today? Thirdly, why can't we look at prior periods of high temperature, and the lack of catastrophe then, as a historical refutation of the hypothesis?

Strictly speaking, no scientific hypothesis or theory can be proved correct, only incorrect.

Exactly. In order to be a strong scientific hypothesis, we must have a set of falsifiable conditions, which, if *never* observed, almost assuredly implies that our hypothesis is true. Since catastrophes can happen for all sorts of reasons, at all sorts of global average temperatures and CO2 levels, simply observing the *lack* of a catastrophe seems like a *necessary* falsification, but certainly not a *sufficient* one.

if a fucking big volcano starts to rumble, spit out rocks, leak lava or whatever, the sensible thing is to start running, not quibble about exactly when it will explode, or whether or not it might just fizzle out

Running, I can agree with. Adaptation to current conditions is always a reasonable approach. However, throwing humans into the volcano to appease its appetite in the hope that our worship can somehow alter the flow of natural conditions, seems a bit unjustified :)

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

Thanks for spotting that schoolboy error.

It is quite the schoolboy error, isn't it :) We have hundreds, if not thousands of papers, written by hundreds, if not thousands of scientists, all trivially tacked with the "global warming" meme, and not *one* of them contains a clearly necessary and falsifiable hypotheses statement. You can prove my hypothesis here wrong by citing a *single* paper that contains a clearly necessary and falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (or whatever variation of AGW you'd like to assert).

We need to start teaching, once again, that in order to be science, one must start with the falsifiable hypothesis statement. Our detour into "science by anecdote" only confuses things like homeopathy, astrology, intelligent design and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming with real science.

Re:Simple solution...

[Laser Lou]

Here is another way of looking at this: you are on the side of modern science when it comes to Evolution and Astronomy. Now, what is it about Global Warming that is different than those other two? Is it that you do not really understand it yet?

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

Doesn't natural climate change occur slowly, over thousands of years?

No, actually, natural climate change happens at all time scales - day changes to night, seasons change into seasons, solar cycles, ENSO/PDO cycles, milankovitch cycles, all happen all of the time.

You can see this quite clearly in the ice core records, but any sort of temperature data will show that this is true -> climate is changing second to second, all the time.

Are you aware that the recent climate change pattern for the 20th century is much different that the historical changes?

Really?

http://www.climate-movie.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/slide48.jpg

Can you pick the right one?

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

Now, what is it about Global Warming that is different than those other two?

Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming lacks a falsifiable hypothesis. Both Evolution (natural selection) and Astronomy *have* falsifiable hypotheses.

Can you state, a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis of CAGW? Can you imagine any sorts of observations, past, present or future, that would be a solid falsification of CAGW?

CAGW, like Astrology, explains *everything* and therefore explains *nothing*.

Re:Simple solution...

[GameboyRMH]

Like I said, no such list exists for any other complex theory and it doesn't bother me in the slightest, especially in this case having been thoroughly and exhaustively nitpicked over the years by climate "skeptics."

Astrology and creationism both rely on clearly wrong and unfounded assertions that can be picked out which invalidate the entire theory, I don't think they're bullshit because I haven't seen a list of all steps between basic physics and astrology/creationism being real, I think they're bullshit because they rely on bullshit.

Global warming relies on and complies with well-established or at least reasonably sound physics at every step, if you want to disprove it the onus is on YOU. If you really want to find the god of the gaps, you'll find some place to shove him in and no list will ever be granular enough to stop you.

Re:Simple solution...

[Laser Lou]

You have rejected answers here that seem quite reasonable to me, so you have your own criteria. Let's spin it around; can you personally imagine or propose falsifiable hypotheses for global warming? You don't have to give an answer for that here; its just a personal exercise.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

Find a modern rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

Let's spin it around; can you personally imagine or propose falsifiable hypotheses for global warming?

I take it you really mean *anthropogenic* global warming (we've directly observed historical global warming and global cooling, all through non-anthropogenic means since it happened even in periods when humans didn't exist).

And actually, I've actually spent quite a bit of time trying to play devil's advocate for the CAGW hypothesis. So far, I've come up with lists of proposed future falsifications, proposed historical falsifications, and what are clearly insufficient and trivial (yet necessary) falsifications.

For future falsifications, it's "failure of models over X years". Problem of course is that any number X is arbitrary, and we've got myriad models that disagree with each other anyway, yet all firmly base their rationale on the premise that CO2 drives warming feedbacks greater than itself.

For historical falsifications, it seems to me many of them are already falsified, but they would have to include:

Historical warming of the same rate as modern warming
Paleo record showing CO2 always lags temperature changes
Historical high CO2 with low average global temperature
Historical low CO2 with high average global temperature
Paleo record showing CO2 and temperature are not correlated
Show CO2 isotope ratios in the atmosphere indicate increases primarily from non-human sources
Show warming periods in the past led to less extreme weather
Show cooling periods in the past led to more extreme weather
Interplanetary bodies, adjusted for distance to the sun, have average global temperatures that correlate with Earth's
Show cloud feedbacks are on average negative

The most interesting one would be the interplanetary bodies one, but I don't think we've got easy access to the paleo records of Mars.

Here's the list of truly trivial falsifications that may be necessary but aren't even remotely sufficient:

Show that humans don't exist
Show that CO2 does not have a specific absorption spectrum
Show that humans don't emit CO2
Show that the global average temperature has not been rising in the industrial era
Show that extreme weather events are declining in rate
Show that H2O does not act as a feedback of specific magnitude to CO2
Show that the global average sea level has not been rising in the industrial era

The idea of falsifiability is so important to the scientific method, that it boggles the mind that for "settled science" they wouldn't already have a clearly defined set of necessary and sufficient falsifications. What we've got at the moment is little more than peer-reviewed climate astrology.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

Global warming relies on and complies with well-established or at least reasonably sound physics at every step, if you want to disprove it the onus is on YOU.

You keep saying this, but you can't come up with a list of steps, and apparently aren't bothered in the slightest by this lack of information :)

Astrology and creationism both rely on clearly wrong and unfounded assertions that can be picked out which invalidate the entire theory

How do you determine whether or not something is "clearly wrong" or "unfounded"?

I'll give you a hint - to do this with the scientific method, we first look for the falsifiable hypothesis statement :)

Re:Simple solution...

[GameboyRMH]

Well then I assume you're a creationist too, because evolution has many of the same complexities. No list of all steps from basic physics to "survival of the fittest." No scientific single falsifiable hypothesis, only a vague and highly summarized one as with GW.

So I assume that likewise, you reject the best knowledge we have for the mysterious alternative, at least until these silly and unsatisfiable conditions are met.

Re:Simple solution...

[tgibbs]

You're doing it backwards. Don't tell me about the ten-thousand white swans you saw - tell me about what *black* swan would falsify your hypothesis. Climate models make numerous testable predictions which have *failed* to be observed...yet you ignore those as irrelevant?

All of the numerous predictions made from climate theory would have falsified the theory if the observations had come out other than predicted: If the nights were not warming more than the days, if the stratosphere were warming rather than cooling, etc., etc. So far, the theory has held up to every one of the numerous challenges

No, it doesn't. Null means "no relation". We have null hypotheses about all *sorts* of things that obviously change (say, the relationship between average gas prices and stock market averages) - you are truly torturing the definition if you're blithely asserting that it means "no change".

I'm glad to see that you now seem to have belatedly gained some comprehension of what I tried to explain to you a couple of posts back:
' "Null hypothesis" has a very specific meaning within statistics. "Null" means "zero" and it denotes that the null hypothesis is always the hypothesis of zero difference or zero correlation. '
Surely it is not at this point necessary to belabor the issue by repeating the whole definition every time I mention it? After all, "no correlation" merely means zero average change in one variable when the other one changes. Please feel free to substitute my previous more lengthy explanation if you find my shorthand too confusing.

The null hypothesis is that average global CO2 levels have no causal relationship to average global temperatures.

Sorry, here you start to screw up again. A null hypothesis cannot be causal, because the concept of a null hypothesis is exclusive to statistics and statistical correlation, and statistical correlation is logically incapable of establishing causality. A causal relationship implies correlation, but the reverse is not true.

Perhaps this will make sense to you if I explain the logic a bit more: It does not make sense to construct causal hypotheses about how two variables are related unless there is evidence that they are, in fact, related. So it is only legitimate to construct a causal hypothesis after the null (zero) statistical hypothesis has been excluded. So a null hypothesis could be zero change in temperature over time (excluded). Or zero statistical relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature (excluded).

Once the null (zero) hypothesis has been excluded, it is gone forever--there is not a new, causal null hypothesis. All causal hypotheses (whether you chose to call them "natural" or not) are subject to the same fundamental criteria for scientific validity. There is a fundamental sanity-checking discipline that real scientific models are subjected to: are the statistical tests carried out in a way that is not subject to bias, or cherry picking? Has the hypothesis been formulated as a mathematical model that generates predictions that can be tested by observation? Is the proposed model consistent with the results of "natural experiments" such as volcanic eruptions? Is it consistent with observations of atmospheric gasses and climate conditions on other planets? Etc., etc.

What specific physical mechanism of climate change that has operated in the past do you imagine to be responsible for any other period of historical warming? Have you cataloged all of those possible mechanisms? Have you excluded all of those possible mechanisms?

This is far too large at topic to summarize in a blog post. Suffice it to say that many different physical mechanisms have been considered both with respect to past and current climate change--orbital changes, changes in solar activity or radiance, release of greenhouse gasses from different sources, etc., etc. You

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

All of the numerous predictions made from climate theory would have falsified the theory if the observations had come out other than predicted: If the nights were not warming more than the days, if the stratosphere were warming rather than cooling, etc., etc.

You're talking about perhaps *necessary* requirements, but surely not sufficient requirements. UHI effects warm nights more than days, and stratospheres can cool even without CO2 driven warming. You've given us no reason to believe that your predictions are indicative that your hypothesis is correct.

After all, "no correlation" merely means zero average change in one variable when the other one changes.

No, you've got it wrong again. "No correlation" (as opposed to "no causation", which is requires correlation, but then it also needs a bit more), doesn't mean *zero* average change in one variable when the other one changes. That's daft. Here, take these two series:

3 1 4 1 5 9 1 2 4 5 3 6
3 2 1 7 3 1 1 2 8 7 1 0

Both series change. Neither correlates to the other.

Once the null (zero) hypothesis has been excluded, it is gone forever--there is not a new, causal null hypothesis.

Again, you're playing a trick on yourself - you cannot simply prove your hypothesis by picking a trivial null to disprove, asserting that once it is gone nothing replaces it, and BAM, your magic hypothesis is now true until someone comes up with something else. That's the kind of argument you get from creationists who insist that BAM, once you discard the null hypothesis of evolution, which breaks the 2nd law since it goes from disorder to order, that the only reasonable explanation is an intelligent designer.

You've managed to write a lot, but you've still failed the most basic test of science - the existence of the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis. Playing games with the definition of "null" (and terribly misunderstanding it to boot), isn't helping your argument :)

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

Well then I assume you're a creationist too, because evolution has many of the same complexities.

Well, you're wrong on both points :)

Creationism is clearly not science, because it has no falsifiable hypothesis. Any historical (and even future) evidence can be explained away by a supernatural power that can do anything.

Evolution, while certainly more complex than most people give it credit for, actually is quite simple to assert falsifications for. Find a modern rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian. Observe a spontaneous change in one generation from say, a crab, giving birth to cow. All evolution requires us to believe is that natural selection can have an effect on what organisms survive, eventually causing enough genetic drift to stop breeding.

CAGW, on the other hand, fails because it has no falsifiable hypothesis. Any historical (and even future) evidence can be explained away by the tweaking of a model or the assertion of some ad hoc special pleading.

It is indeed ironic that some of the most stalwart defenders of the scientific method nowadays are creationists, while darwinists are busy defending the religion of CAGW :)

Re:Simple solution...

[tgibbs]

You're talking about perhaps *necessary* requirements

That's what a "falsifiable prediction" means.

You've given us no reason to believe that your predictions are indicative that your hypothesis is correct.

Real science never claims to prove that a theory is correct. Indeed, it is a logical impossibility to prove any theory correct. It is always possible that there could be some other theory that could be equally consistent with the data. In the case of climate science, critics have had a long time to come up with competing theories. The physics upon which climate science is based is published and the equations are well known. Code for many climate models has been made publicly available. Yet no critic has been able to come up with a climate model that is based on valid physics and is equally consistent with the existing climate data and that does not predict a worrisome degree of warming as a consequence of CO2 emissions. This is about as strong as evidence ever gets in science.

No, you've got it wrong again. "No correlation" (as opposed to "no causation", which is requires correlation, but then it also needs a bit more), doesn't mean *zero* average change in one variable when the other one changes. That's daft.

Wrong. Pick up a statistics textbook. The null model of correlation is that there is zero average change in one variable when the other one changes. Showing that the change in measured values is significantly greater than would be expected from chance variation constitutes rejection of the null model. Of course, correlation does not imply causality. Statistics is inherently unable to determine causality.

Again, you're playing a trick on yourself - you cannot simply prove your hypothesis by picking a trivial null to disprove, asserting that once it is gone nothing replaces it

The null model is the zero model--zero change or zero correlation. I didn't pick it; that's how it's defined. You are trying to call a tail a leg again.

hat's the kind of argument you get from creationists who insist that BAM, once you discard the null hypothesis of evolution, which breaks the 2nd law since it goes from disorder to order, that the only reasonable explanation is an intelligent designer.

Sorry, but this is scientifically illiterate nonsense. No biologist will tell you that natural selection is a null model. Remember, a null model is purely statistical, and therefore cannot be causal. One could of course create statistical null models that would be relevant to the theory of evolution. One such model might be "the genetic code of [insert species] has not changed over time." But the theory of natural selection is a causal model, not a statistical model, and hence can never be a null model.

You've managed to write a lot, but you've still failed the most basic test of science - the existence of the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis.

I can't help being amused when amateurs try to tell scientists how to do science--and get it ludicrously wrong. In this case, "necessary and sufficient" is not even wrong--it's impossible based on elementary logic.

Re:Simple solution...

[GameboyRMH]

There are conditions like that which could falsify global warming. If there were a long-term global trend of atmospheric and oceanic temperature decline despite increasing CO2 concentrations for example (other factors being roughly stable). Disproof of the greenhouse effect or discovery of some previously unknown mitigating factor. Discovery of some unknown natural fossil-source greenhouse gas mega-vent could disprove the currently accepted extent of human influence.

What now?

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

If there were a long-term global trend of atmospheric and oceanic temperature decline despite increasing CO2 concentrations for example (other factors being roughly stable).

Well, we've seen this in the ice core records, but of course, you've left yourself great big loopholes there (define "long-term", and "other factors being roughly stable").

Would you like to quantify your loopholes (and whatever required due diligence is necessary to defend them against the n+1 and n-1 cases), or would you like to try a different tack?

In the end, a hypothesis which responds to any refutation with yet another excuse is simply another version of astrology.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

That's what a "falsifiable prediction" means.

And the difference between a useful falsifiable prediction, and a silly one, is that a useful one (or set) will contain all necessary and *sufficient* components to imply that the proposition is true. Saying that anthropogenic global warming can be falsified by showing that humans don't exist is silly, because surely the mere fact that humans exist doesn't imply any measure of anthropogenic global warming.

Yet no critic has been able to come up with a climate model that is based on valid physics and is equally consistent with the existing climate data and that does not predict a worrisome degree of warming as a consequence of CO2 emissions.

In science, a critic doesn't need to replace an existing conceit with one of their own, they only need to show that the proposed conceit is false. We do that by establishing all of the necessary and sufficient falsifications, and then searching hard for those falsifications.

What you're proposing is that absent a model of heliocentrism, nobody could possibly have refuted the idea that the universe revolved around the earth. Or that absent a model of natural selection, nobody could possibly have refuted the idea that the species were created by an intelligent designer.

Arguing that your non-falsifiable hypothesis is right simply because nobody has come up with a better explanation is daft.

The null model is the zero model--zero change or zero correlation. I didn't pick it; that's how it's defined.

What is it? Zero change or zero correlation? You seem to believe that zero change and zero correlation are the same...let me demonstrate with some series again. First, zero change:

a) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
b) 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1

Now, zero correlation:

a) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
b) 1, 5, 2, 3, 6, 6, 7, 1, 2, 3

Can you tell the difference? Do you understand why the null hypothesis of climate change *isn't* that global average temperatures never change?

The null model of correlation is that there is zero average change in one variable when the other one changes.

You clearly don't understand statistics. You can have non-correlation with change in both variables, as clearly shown with my series above.

Further reading for you:

http://stattrek.com/hypothesis-test/hypothesis-testing.aspx

"Null hypothesis. The null hypothesis, denoted by H0, is usually the hypothesis that sample observations result purely from chance. "

But the theory of natural selection is a causal model, not a statistical model, and hence can never be a null model.

So I bring up the point that creationists toy with the null hypothesis in order to reject the null and place their hypothesis in point of preference, and you decide that the relevant question is what is a causal model and what is a statistical model?

I can't help being amused when amateurs try to tell scientists how to do science

So you amuse yourself by telling me how science is done? :) Hey, Einstein was an amateur, there's no fault in that :)

"necessary and sufficient" is not even wrong--it's impossible based on elementary logic.

Ah, the truth finally emerges! You admit that it is impossible to come up with the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis elements for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming! Progress!

Re:Simple solution...

[tgibbs]

And the difference between a useful falsifiable prediction, and a silly one, is that a useful one (or set) will contain all necessary and *sufficient* components to imply that the proposition is true.

Once again, this is a logical impossibility. Since there is no way to enumerate the predictions of every possible model (indeed, the set is almost certainly infinite), there is no possible prediction that is sufficient to show that a model is true. This is the case for any theory about the real world.

In science, a critic doesn't need to replace an existing conceit with one of their own, they only need to show that the proposed conceit is false.

This statement is the hallmark of the scientific crank. You will never hear a successful scientist say this, or a historian of science. Who says this? Evolution deniers. HIV/AIDS deniers. Global warming deniers. It is a one of those deceptive notions that is obviously ridiculous to those who have done actual science, yet can sound plausible to the amateur. After all, it is true in logic, it is true in mathematics, shouldn't it be true in science? And indeed, it would be true in an ideal world without noise, without statistical variation, in which perfectly accurate measurement was possible, one in which it was possible to construct mathematical models at the subatomic level that perfectly reproduced nature and approximations were unnecessary. But of course, we live in the real world in which none of this is true. What a scientist will tell you is that all models are wrong. All models are imperfect representations of reality. That is why we call them models. But as was articulated perhaps most clearly by Isaac Asimov some are less wrong than others. The advance of science has been through a progression of successively less wrong models. It is very easy to nitpick somebody else's model, and pretty much worthless. All models are wrong. The question is whether it is wrong in a way that matters. To show that it is, you need to offer a better one--one that makes better predictions. Predictions are also important because there are some subtle statistical fallacies that it is possible to fall into (particularly for amateurs, but even experienced scientists can sometimes be tripped up) when you examine data after the fact (you'll see a lot of that on WUWT). This is why prediction is the gold standard of science. If you think that the current model is wrong, and wrong in a way that matters, you have to show that when you fix whatever is wrong with it, you are able to make better predictions. When one side of a debate has a clear theory that has been subjected to the discipline of mathematical modeling, with a long track record of making clear, falsifiable predictions, and the other side has nothing but model nitpicking, the former side will have far more credibility with working scientists--which is, of course, why every major elite scientific society in the world, and something like 97% of scientists with any kind of published track record in a relevant field, accept climate theory and its predictions regarding CO2 and climate change.

What is it? Zero change or zero correlation? You seem to believe that zero change and zero correlation are the same...let me demonstrate with some series again.

Zero correlation means that on average, when one variable changes, the other does not. Neither of your series shows statistically significant correlation. Zero correlation with time means zero average change over time. Again, I suggest that you consult a textbook on elementary statistics.

Re:Simple solution...

[GameboyRMH]

Where in the ice core records? I hope you're not talking about the ice age CO2/heat lag thing because that's been discussed to death.

In the end, a hypothesis which responds to any refutation with yet another excuse is simply another version of astrology.

And this leads back to the vain quest for a single scientific hypothesis to cover the entire theory.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

I hope you're not talking about the ice age CO2/heat lag thing because that's been discussed to death.

Well, one of the possible falsifiable predictions that could have been made is "if historically CO2 levels *lead* temperature changes, then we're right - if historical CO2 levels *lag* temperature changes then we're wrong". Instead, it's asserted "in the past CO2 is allowed to lag temperature changes, and post-industrial era CO2 is allowed to lead temperature changes".

That's astrology.

And this leads back to the vain quest for a single scientific hypothesis to cover the entire theory.

I'll settle even for a clearly linked set of falsifiable hypotheses...but I think you're right, the quest is in vain - it simply doesn't exist.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

All models are wrong. The question is whether it is wrong in a way that matters.

Well, cite any GCM that can properly model clouds, hind cast PDO/ENSO, or establish any regional predictions of any accuracy. Surely clouds and ocean oscillations matter in significant ways, right?

Global average temperature affects nobody. Regional weather does.

which is, of course, why every major elite scientific society in the world, and something like 97% of scientists with any kind of published track record in a relevant field, accept climate theory and its predictions regarding CO2 and climate change.

They said that about geocentrism, alchemy, creationism, and even the flat earth. Argument from unnamed authorities is a big red flag - show me your falsifiable hypothesis statement (or set of falsifiable hypothesis statements), or you're simply pushing astrology.

Zero correlation means that on average, when one variable changes, the other does not. Neither of your series shows statistically significant correlation

Neither of my series shows statistically significant correlation, yet *both* of them change. So the null hypothesis of natural climate change is clearly still the null hypothesis (we know climate naturally *changes*, and doesn't have to remain static compared to CO2 levels). In fact, the observed historical record shows a time lagged correlation, with CO2 *following* temperature. If we were going to propose a causality based on the majority of the data, it would go *from* temperature *to* CO2.

So how are you now going to exclude our modern industrial age observations from natural climate change?

http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/08/26/periodb.gif
http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/08/26/perioda_3.gif

One is 1957-present. The other is 1895-1946. One of them is clearly "natural" (since our CO2 emissions were minimal during the 1895-1946 period), and the other is proposed to be "anthropogenic" (since our CO2 emissions were incredibly huge from 1957 to present).

Can you pick the "natural" one?

Re:Simple solution...

[tgibbs]

Neither of my series shows statistically significant correlation, yet *both* of them change. So the null hypothesis of natural climate change is clearly still the null hypothesis (we know climate naturally *changes*, and doesn't have to remain static compared to CO2 levels). In fact, the observed historical record shows a time lagged correlation, with CO2 *following* temperature. If we were going to propose a causality based on the majority of the data, it would go *from* temperature *to* CO2.

I'm not sure that it's worth the trouble of trying to teach you anything about basic, since your previous comments have suggested that you actively resist learning anything that might challenge your fixed opinion regarding climate science (e.g. you are highly familiar with climate "skeptic" talking points, yet you somehow have managed to learn almost nothing about the actual science). But I'll give it a shot.

A few key points to remember if you don't want to sound foolish when talking to actual scientists:
1. Statistics addresses questions of correlation, not causality.
2. The "null hypothesis" applies solely to statistical significance testing, and thus relates only to correlation, never to causality.
3. Hence, any statement with the word "cause" in it can never be a null hypothesis.

Now let's consider as an example one of the series that you came up with before.

a) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
b) 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1

Now it is important for you to remember that we are discussing statistical measurement. So you can't regard this as a mathematical series; you must regard them as measurements of statistical variables that have some "true" value (which you can estimate, but which you cannot in general know with perfect precision) plus some amount of random error or variation. So you do not expect the measured value to be the same every time you measure it.

So if you ask if a variable is "constant," or shows "no change," you aren't really asking it is the same every time you measure it, because for a statistical variable the answer to that is automatically "No". Rather, you are asking a question about correlation. Does the measured value of a variable depend upon the measured value of some other variable? For example, you may ask whether it shows no change over time, which in statistical parlance is equivalent to the statement that the measured value has no correlation with time. Or you may ask whether it shows no change from place to place, in which case you are asking whether its measured value shows no correlation with some measure of location. Or you may ask whether it shows no change when some other variable changes, in which case you are asking whether there is no correlation between one measured variable (e.g. temperature) and another (e.g. CO2). All of the above are examples of null hypotheses. What makes them null hypotheses is that in all cases, the hypothesis is that one variable does not change with the other--or more technically, that the correlation does not differ from zero more than would be expected from the random variation in both parameters.

Now your Series clearly shows no significant correlation; in fact the correlation is precisely zero. That doesn't mean that there is no correlation because the "null" or zero hypothesis cannot be proved, only disproved. Indeed, there is an obvious problem, because parameter (b) shows no variation at all. This could mean that it has not been measured accurately enough to detect a correlation. Perhaps a more accurate measurement would give values like 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 1.04, 1.05, 1.06, 1.07, 1.08, 1.09, 1.1 -- which would new highly correlated. So the most we can say about the null hypothesis is that we cannot reject it based on the available data. Once you reject the null hypothesis, you may then consider the reasons why the variables in question (e.g. temperature and time) are correlated. At this point, all hypotheses, whether you choose to call them "natural"

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

2. The "null hypothesis" applies solely to statistical significance testing, and thus relates only to correlation, never to causality.
3. Hence, any statement with the word "cause" in it can never be a null hypothesis.

Wrong on both counts.

"The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position. For example, the null hypothesis might be that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena or that a potential treatment has no effect."

Here's some basic statistics review for you: https://www.msu.edu/user/sw/statrev/strv46.htm

"The Null Hypothesis is the hypothesis that there is no relationship between two variables. Establishing that there is a relationship between two variables is the first step in establishing whether there is a causal connection between two variables. "

So in considering causes of temperature fluctuations over a period of time, you must consider all factors: volcanic eruptions, solar radiance, time of year and time of day of measurement, short-term ocean current cycles like El Nino, particulate and CO2 pollution, etc.

So, are you asserting that you've considered every possible cause for every temperature fluctuation? Your assertion of complexity here is *exactly* the problem with taking GCMs, and asserting that they represent science. We already *know* our information is proxied, limited, and full of holes. To take us from a state of incredibly lacking knowledge, then plugging in fudge factors to predict what temperatures will be 50 years from now, much less pinning it mostly on a *single* molecule measured in parts per million sets bullshit detectors off to 11.

By appropriate statistical analysis and physical modeling, it is possible to dissect which factors affected temperature over a given period of time.

No, it simply isn't. Put another way, if we had any sort of ability to do accurate modeling at that level, we'd be able to create a model for the stock market that will tell us, to the nearest hundred, what the Dow Jones Industrial Average will be in 100 years. Humans are arguably *less* complicated than global climate, and you'd never go so far as to assume you could model markets with any sort of reasonable accuracy...or do you?

Sorry, but if you'd read any of the real science, you would know that this is a laughable argument, because it is exactly what climate science predicts.

So you're now asserting climate science predicts a time travel effect, where future CO2 can effect present temperatures?

Review Feynman, and try again :) http://research.microsoft.com/apps/tools/tuva/

Re:Simple solution...

[tgibbs]

"The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position. For example, the null hypothesis might be that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena or that a potential treatment has no effect."

Here's some basic statistics review for you: https://www.msu.edu/user/sw/statrev/strv46.htm [msu.edu]

"The Null Hypothesis is the hypothesis that there is no relationship between two variables. Establishing that there is a relationship between two variables is the first step in establishing whether there is a causal connection between two variables. "

:

I see that you have found other sources that confirm what I told you: the null hypothesis is the default hypothesis of no correlation ("no relationship" is just another way of saying "no correlation") between two variables (i.e. one variable does not change in any consistent manner when the other one does). I note that although you have clearly been looking, you have found no example of a null hypothesis that mentions causality. You won't, because "null" (which means "zero") hypotheses are exclusive to statistical correlation, and correlation is incapable of addressing questions of causality. So your special pleading that "natural variation as a cause of climate warming" should be regarded as a null hypothesis, and therefore exempted from the normal criteria applied to competing scientific hypotheses (e.g. to be based on a physically realistic mechanism, to make falsifiable predictions, and to be consistent with the known data) is a non-starter.

So, are you asserting that you've considered every possible cause for every temperature fluctuation?

Yes, climate scientists have considered every physically realistic mechanism that could potentially account for the rise in temperatures, including the ones that were likely responsible for past episodes of (what you call "natural") climate change. If you think you have a new one, then provide the hypothesis, and show evidence that it is both consistent with the known climate record and acting today.

No, it simply isn't. Put another way, if we had any sort of ability to do accurate modeling at that level, we'd be able to create a model for the stock market

Sorry, but this kind of clutching at rhetorical straws is silly. There is no relationship whatsoever between the physical mechanisms responsible for climate change and the economic and psychological mechanisms that determine movements of the stock market. Here's one rather obvious difference: if somebody comes up with a model that accurately predicts movements in stock prices, then people will change their investments based upon those predictions, which will alter the movements of the stock market in such a way that those predictions are no longer valid. Fortunately, we don't have to worry that the physics of climate will alter in response to what we know about it.

So you're now asserting climate science predicts a time travel effect, where future CO2 can effect present temperatures?

It predicts that increases in CO2 can either lead or follow warming, depending upon whether the warming is initiated by release of CO2 or by some other factor, such as a change in solar output. This is very elementary, and you would already know it if you'd bothered to learn anything about the actual science instead of deriving everything that you think you know from crank web sites.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

I note that although you have clearly been looking, you have found no example of a null hypothesis that mentions causality.

You didn't read the cite, did you? :)

""The Null Hypothesis is the hypothesis that there is no relationship between two variables. Establishing that there is a relationship between two variables is the first step in establishing whether there is a causal connection between two variables. ""

Note the word *causal*. Go ahead, I'll wait for you to read it again :)

Yes, climate scientists have considered every physically realistic mechanism that could potentially account for the rise in temperatures, including the ones that were likely responsible for past episodes of (what you call "natural") climate change.

Bullshit detectors redlining to 12 now. From the IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-5-2.html

"In spite of this undeniable progress, the amplitude and even the sign of cloud feedbacks was noted in the TAR as highly uncertain"

What kind of magical mystical process have your unnamed climate scientists used to determine the paleo cloud cover? Hint: we call it "curve fitting".

It predicts that increases in CO2 can either lead or follow warming,

Bullshit detectors up to 13, needle is bending. A hypothesis that predicts *everything* predicts *nothing*. Astrology predicts that Cancers are trustworthy, but sometimes dishonest.

There is no relationship whatsoever between the physical mechanisms responsible for climate change and the economic and psychological mechanisms that determine movements of the stock market.

On the contrary, if we can take a simple model of supply and demand, just as we take a simple model of greenhouse gases, we should be able to gloss over all the gory details of psychology (and cloud cover), and come to conclusions that are "settled", right? :)

You really don't understand the limitations of computer models, do you?

Re:Simple solution...

[tgibbs]

""The Null Hypothesis is the hypothesis that there is no relationship between two variables. Establishing that there is a relationship between two variables is the first step in establishing whether there is a causal connection between two variables. ""

Note the word *causal*. Go ahead, I'll wait for you to read it again :)

The part you missed is "first step." *sigh* I've explained this to you about 3 times already, but maybe the 4th time is the charm. Probably not, though. People seem to get very attached to crank notions, and the idea of a causal null hypothesis is certainly one of those.

The first step in establishing whether there is a causal connection between two variables is excluding the null hypothesis of no correlation. After all, if two variables are not correlated, it makes no sense to construct a causal hypothesis of how they are correlated. Once the null hypothesis has been excluded, it is then considered legitimate to construct causal hypotheses (all of which are considered on an equal basis, and must satisfy the usual criteria for a valid hypothesis (do I really need to repeat these?)

"In spite of this undeniable progress, the amplitude and even the sign of cloud feedbacks was noted in the TAR as highly uncertain"

Ah, another standard crank talking point: "If there is something that is not perfectly understood, then nothing is understood."
If you think that cloud feedbacks can possibly account for global warming, then produce a model, and show that it can provide a reasonably good fit to the known climate record, and can also explain the modern warming. After all, many climate science models are publicly available. So plug in whatever cloud feedback you please, and show that the model can account for the difficulty. While do you imagine that nobody has done this by now? After all climate science "skeptics" love to clutch at the straw of cloud feedbacks. Actually, real climate scientists have tested models with different cloud feedbacks. As explained in the IPCC section that you quote-mined (but I suspect, did not actually read or comprehend) different cloud feedbacks have been modeled. But while uncertainty about cloud feedbacks creates some uncertainty about the magnitude of future warming, it doesn't make it away.

But think about this: clearly, global climate has been warming. So if this is due to some "natural" mechanism involving cloud feedbacks, that implies that cloud feedbacks have been changing. So what about clouds is changing? It doesn't seem too likely that the physics of water vapor is changing, does it?

A hypothesis that predicts *everything* predicts *nothing*.

So according to you, if the interaction between temperature and atmospheric CO2 displays the well understood dynamics of a positive feedback (i.e. if you increase one, the other will follow, and you can get it to go either way depending upon where you start), that means that it explains everything? Or are you just in a snit that something that you thought was a problem with climate science is actually a prediction? In fact, it would be a problem for climate science if it didn't work that way.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

The first step in establishing whether there is a causal connection between two variables is excluding the null hypothesis of no correlation.

Okay, say for a moment we stipulate to that, and agree that there is a correlation between CO2 and global average temperature. Doesn't causality require that CO2 change first *then* temperature? Doesn't the ice core record show the opposite...doesn't it *always* show the opposite over any significant timescale?

Actually, real climate scientists have tested models with different cloud feedbacks

And they're not even sure of the *sign* of this feedback, much less the magnitude. That's a hole you can drive 100 years of warming right through.

But think about this: clearly, global climate has been warming. So if this is due to some "natural" mechanism involving cloud feedbacks, that implies that cloud feedbacks have been changing.

No, it doesn't at all. The problem with the modeled cloud feedbacks (where they don't even know what *direction* it goes in), is that it essentially leads to error bars an order of magnitude larger than the effect we're trying to observe.

Clearly, global climate has been warming. Clearly, global climate has warmed in the past. We assume that in the past, before CO2 emissions by humanity increased dramatically, this was due to natural causes. Can you tell from these two graphs, which one is the "natural" warming and which one is the anthropogenic CO2 warming?

http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/08/26/periodb.gif
http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/08/26/perioda_3.gif

So according to you, if the interaction between temperature and atmospheric CO2 displays the well understood dynamics of a positive feedback (i.e. if you increase one, the other will follow, and you can get it to go either way depending upon where you start), that means that it explains everything?

Listen to yourself carefully here - you're asserting that the dynamics of CO2 both lead and lag temperature changes. The ice core record shows that it lags, and has consistently lagged for hundreds of thousands of years.

Now, what you're asserting now is that historical, present, and future observations of either a lag, or a lead, supports your hypothesis. So, no matter what we observe, you're asserting you're correct. The entire universe of observations is consistent with your hypothesis.

We call this astrology :)

Re:Simple solution...

[tgibbs]

Doesn't causality require that CO2 change first *then* temperature?

In a word, no. It is more the rule than the exception in physical processes for causality to be able to run in either direction, depending upon boundary conditions.

And they're not even sure of the *sign* of this feedback, much less the magnitude. That's a hole you can drive 100 years of warming right through.

The reason that they are not sure of the sign is that the evidence indicates that net cloud feedback is close to zero. When a value is close to zero, it is hard to determine whether it is a little bit negative or a little bit positive. And no, nobody has managed to come up with a model that creates the modern warming through cloud feedback and that is at all consistent with the known climate records. There are plenty of published climate models. Feel free to try.

No, it doesn't at all. The problem with the modeled cloud feedbacks (where they don't even know what *direction* it goes in), is that it essentially leads to error bars an order of magnitude larger than the effect we're trying to observe.

This is false. While models vary somewhat in their predictions due to differences in cloud feedbacks, every model that is consistent with the known climate record predicts statistically significant warming in response to the massive increase in CO2 due to burning of fossil fuels. Oh, by the way, "eyeballing" error bars is not a valid way to judge statistical significance--you must use the appropriate mathematical test.

Can you tell from these two graphs, which one is the "natural" warming and which one is the anthropogenic CO2 warming?

You can't tell much of anything from a graph in which the axes are unlabeled. Warming arising from "natural" sources can be distinguished because "natural" does not mean magic. Natural mechanisms of warming have effects other than just an increase in average temperature. For example, warming due to an increase in solar output predicts that the upper atmosphere will warm more than the lower (in fact, the upper atmosphere has cooled). It also predicts that the warming trend will be greater in the day than at night (it's the other way around). Etc., etc.

Listen to yourself carefully here - you're asserting that the dynamics of CO2 both lead and lag temperature changes.

Correct. That's what the physics predicts. Like many physical processes, it can run in either direction, depending upon circumstances (i.e. what initiates the warming). You are repeating one of those classic climate "skeptic" talking points that only sounds plausible to people who are ignorant of science. Real scientists just roll their eyes when they hear nonsense like this, because basically it boils down to, "Climate science must be wrong because over history, temperature and CO2 have behaved in exactly the way that the model predicts." To be fair, however, many of the standard climate "skeptic" talking points were carefully designed by lobbyists (as has been so thoroughly documented by historian Naomi Oreskes in "Merchants of Doubt") who specialize in creating specious arguments specifically designed to fool people with a superficial knowledge of science. You are hardly the first person to be taken in by this one, as foolish as it sounds to actual scientists.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

In a word, no. It is more the rule than the exception in physical processes for causality to be able to run in either direction, depending upon boundary conditions.

Really? So, we can heat a pot of water with fire, and also cause a fire with a heated pot of water?

Let's have an actual example.

The reason that they are not sure of the sign is that the evidence indicates that net cloud feedback is close to zero.

Hardly. They have no idea about the magnitude *or* the quantity.

And no, nobody has managed to come up with a model that creates the modern warming through cloud feedback and that is at all consistent with the known climate records.

Again, you're trying to take a failure of the GCMs you have so much faith in, and then assert that this failure must somehow represent an entire solution for the problem at hand? We know cloud feedback is real. We don't have any model that accurately deals with cloud feedback. How can we rely on a model that ignores reality?

every model that is consistent with the known climate record

Models are consistent with the known climate record because they've been curve fitted. Understand this isn't one of their strengths.

You can't tell much of anything from a graph in which the axes are unlabeled. Warming arising from "natural" sources can be distinguished because "natural" does not mean magic.

The graphs are the same period of time, and the same vertical scale, simply unlabeled as to the absolute value. You cannot discern from either of them which one is supposed to be "natural" as per your AGW hypothesis, and which one is supposed to be CO2 driven.

Given that such a similar period of 50 years exists within the climate record, before any proposed CO2 impact should have even existed, shows great weakness, don't you think?

For example, warming due to an increase in solar output predicts that the upper atmosphere will warm more than the lower (in fact, the upper atmosphere has cooled).

Funny you should mention that:

http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2019Note
“what would FALSIFY [linking CO2 to ‘warming’]?”

Schmidt swings again:
”that the stratosphere is not cooling as expected (this is a cleaner test than the surface temperatures because there are less extraneous factors)”

And it’s a miss! The stratosphere hasn’t been cooling in over a decade:
http://www.acd.ucar.edu/Research/Highlight/stratosphere.shtml
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/temp-and-precip/upper-air/uahncdc.ls
http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/JournalPDFs/RandelEtal.JGR2009.pdf

Like many physical processes, it can run in either direction, depending upon circumstances

Ah, back to the pots of heated water than can create fires :)

Re:Simple solution...

[tgibbs]

Models are consistent with the known climate record because they've been curve fitted. Understand this isn't one of their strengths.

Once I get past the visceral repugnance I (like most scientists) feel for dishonesty, I can't help but admire how well-crafted some of these climate science talking points are. It is quite clear that they were crafted by people who themselves understood the science, and who carefully crafted a set of fallacious pseudoscientific arguments designed to deceive people with superficial understanding of science. Of course, they know that it is not possible to get global warming to go away by fiddling with the magnitude of feedback. They've tried, and failed. So how do they get the public to ignore the fact that they don't have a model, whereas the real climate scientists have subjected their own ideas to the scientific "sanity checking" of mathematical modeling. They spread the meme that they don't need to come up with a physically realistic model because their model is the "null hypothesis" (which sounds stupid if you known what a null hypothesis actually is, but most people don't, they think--like you--that it is just means some kind of default model). And they also spread the meme that these models can be "curve fitted" to say anything you want. Of course, that's not true--if it were, they would have their own, competing mathematical model that did not predict global warming--but the public are mostly unfamiliar with working with physical models, and imagine that it is something like fitting to an arbitrary mathematical formula. Of course, anybody who has actually worked with physical models knows this to be quite false. Very often, it is simply impossible to get such models to do what you wish, because physical models are constrained by physical principles--for example, if you want a model in which increased CO2 causes warming, but warming doesn't increase CO2, you run up against basic physical principles like conservation of energy.

The graphs are the same period of time, and the same vertical scale, simply unlabeled as to the absolute value. You cannot discern from either of them which one is supposed to be "natural" as per your AGW hypothesis, and which one is supposed to be CO2 driven.

Surely, if you actually think this through, you will realize how ridiculous this is. If your living room is uncomfortably wrong, do you imagine that you can determine, solely by looking at the thermometer, whether it is too warm because it is a hot day--or because you left the heat on? No, you gather other information; you step outside to check the weather, you check the thermostat, you check whether you left the oven on.

And it’s a miss! The stratosphere hasn’t been cooling in over a decade:

Now this is another very clever deception. Given any trend with random statistical noise riding on top of it, it is always possible to find a period of time short enough so that the noise obscures the trend. Of course, it is possible to examine the statistical properties of the noise, and determine what period of time you have to examine to be able to reliably detect a trend in the presence of the noise. This has been done for temperature measurements, and the required interval turns out to be a couple of decades or so. So we are deluged with claims that "the earth has not warmed" (or, in this case "the stratosphere has not cooled") over the last decade. Dishonest as hell, but very clever, because the public does not have a sophisticated understanding of statistical determination of trends.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

Of course, they know that it is not possible to get global warming to go away by fiddling with the magnitude of feedback.

Whoa, hold yer rhetoric there for a moment - we know that there is natural global warming, and natural global cooling. Fiddling with the magnitude of a feedback in a GCM is what gives rise to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, or leaves things at simply Inconsequential Anthropogenic Global Warming. There is a difference.

They spread the meme that they don't need to come up with a physically realistic model because their model is the "null hypothesis"

Natural climate change isn't a model, it just *is*. It is what happened before humanity existed, and what will happen after humanity disappears. The question at hand is whether or not observed modern temperatures are within natural climate change variations, or if human impacts have discernibly impacted these variations, and, if so, if they have impacted these variations in a way that is proven to be detrimental to humanity.

While you can keep holding onto the "you can't say I'm wrong until you come up with something righter" argument, it simply isn't science.

And they also spread the meme that these models can be "curve fitted" to say anything you want. Of course, that's not true-

Of course, it is true. Don't think for a moment that we have a model of physical processes that we can simply run backwards and recreate historical temperatures - we *started* with those simple models (and maintained the central conceit that CO2 was an overwhelming climate driver, instead of a second order function of temperature), and tweaked things until they gave a close match to historical records.

Of course, anybody who has actually worked with physical models knows this to be quite false.

Ah, another appeal to unnamed authorities :)

Surely, if you actually think this through, you will realize how ridiculous this is.

Wait, it's ridiculous to show you two 50 year temperature anomaly graphs, one that is clearly outside the era of high human CO2 emissions, and ask you to show me the anthropogenic fingerprint?

Your problem is this - modern temperature records aren't unprecedented on any scale. You have no way of excluding the null hypothesis of natural climate change.

Given any trend with random statistical noise riding on top of it, it is always possible to find a period of time short enough so that the noise obscures the trend.

And isn't that also true of your favored CO2 hypothesis? That what you claim is a trend could simply be natural background noise?

Again, you've left yourself with an unfalsifiable hypothesis that is justified by ad hoc special pleadings whenever data suggests you're wrong. This is called climate astrology :)

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

Huh? How do you know it's real if you can't measure it?

We know it's real, we can measure it, but we can't *model* it accurately, nor do we have any proxies that would tell us what it was if we weren't observing it with the modern instruments of today.

You're also going to have to explain the difference between "magnitude" and "quantity" here.

Sorry, typo, I meant "polarity" (as in positive or negative) and "quantity".

Re:Simple solution...

[tgibbs]

Whoa, hold yer rhetoric there for a moment - we know that there is natural global warming, and natural global cooling. Fiddling with the magnitude of a feedback in a GCM is what gives rise to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, or leaves things at simply Inconsequential Anthropogenic Global Warming. There is a difference.

Fiddling with the cloud feedback also does not eliminate the prediction of serious global warming that is likely to cause financial and human costs that far exceed the cost of mitigation. "Catastrophic" is a vague term. None of the projections of climate science include what I would characterize as "catastrophic" global warming. On the other hand, the greater uncertainties are at the upper end, particularly with respect to consequences. For example, biologists are not predicting that global warming will result in the emergence of a crop disease that will wipe out a major component of the world's food supply supply, resulting in the starvation of 10% of the world's population, but I expect that you will find few willing to assure you that it's beyond the realm of possibility.

Natural climate change isn't a model, it just *is*.

I see. So in your mind, there are no physical mechanisms responsible for "natural" climate change that could be studied and mathematically modeled. It has nothing to do with solar radiance, cloud feedback the earth's orbit, volcanic eruptions, or shifts in ocean currents. It's just....magic.

Remember, mathematical modeling is the major ways that scientists "check their work," to see if their ideas actually make sense, or if they are fooling themselves. So if somebody tells me that they believe that the modern warming is due to something other than CO2 ("cloud feedback" for example) and I ask them, "Have you checked your work mathematically? Is your theory consistent with known data?" and they answer, "No, I haven't bothered, because I'm really, really sure that I'm right, and besides, cloud feedback is natural, so I believe that I should be exempt from having to check my work," I'll conclude that the guy is not a real scientist, but just a crank, and give his views little credence.

Of course, it is true. Don't think for a moment that we have a model of physical processes that we can simply run backwards and recreate historical temperatures - we *started* with those simple models (and maintained the central conceit that CO2 was an overwhelming climate driver, instead of a second order function of temperature), and tweaked things until they gave a close match to historical records.

Well, that's all very interesting, but I'd be more convinced if you'd checked your work, and shown mathematically that it was possible to develop a physical model in which CO2 is not a strong climate driver, without losing consistency with the known climate data.

Your problem is this - modern temperature records aren't unprecedented on any scale. You have no way of excluding the null hypothesis of natural climate change.

So first we have a straw man--no scientist has claimed that modern temperature records are unprecedented, only that the natural causes that have produced high temperatures in the past are not present today. And then you fall back on your old "null hypothesis" mistake. Remember, the null hypothesis must be a zero statistical correlation hypothesis. So what are you supposing to have zero correlation? Temperature and time? Temperature and CO2?

And isn't that also true of your favored CO2 hypothesis? That what you claim is a trend could simply be natural background noise?

When examined over the period of time that statistical analysis indicates is necessary to be able to reliably detect the trend expected from global warming, it is highly significant. If you are asking, "But isn't it possible that global warming stopped for some unknown reason 9 years ago, or last week, or 10 seconds ago?" I will replay, "Absolutely. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

Fiddling with the cloud feedback also does not eliminate the prediction of serious global warming that is likely to cause financial and human costs that far exceed the cost of mitigation.

Cite some numbers here - if we continue at 0.1C/century warming, why should we assume any sort of catastrophe? Did the world become more catastrophic over the past 100 years where we've experienced that?

So in your mind, there are no physical mechanisms responsible for "natural" climate change that could be studied and mathematically modeled.

Oh, certainly there are physical mechanisms for natural climate change, but I don't have to model them in order for them to be true. The simply *are*. Did electricity exist before we modeled it? Did chemistry exist before we modeled it? Did plate tectonics exist before we modeled it?

Of course it did. And so does natural climate change. Surely you don't deny that, do you?

So if somebody tells me that they believe that the modern warming is due to something other than CO2 ("cloud feedback" for example) and I ask them, "Have you checked your work mathematically? Is your theory consistent with known data?"

Sure we've checked it mathematically - we've got indistinguishable periods of 50 years of warming, one of which is asserted to be "natural" and the other asserted to be due to human CO2. There is no discernible difference, ergo, we have no strong assertion that the 50 year period we'd like to assert as due to human CO2 was anything but the natural course of events. Since things aren't unprecedented, there's no reason to assume that suddenly things happened in the same way for different reasons.

I'd be more convinced if you'd checked your work, and shown mathematically that it was possible to develop a physical model in which CO2 is not a strong climate driver, without losing consistency with the known climate data.

Again, you seem to believe that a flawed, falsified model must be believed in the absence of another mathematical model. This isn't how science works - you don't need to prove something else right in order to prove a hypothesis wrong. I'd be more convinced if the known climate data of the modern CO2 emitting era was unique in the historical climate record - but it isn't.

The sun rises and sets because of the rotation of the earth. But now you want me to believe that the sun rise of April 2, 2012 actually had a different cause? Color me skeptical :)

So first we have a straw man--no scientist has claimed that modern temperature records are unprecedented, only that the natural causes that have produced high temperatures in the past are not present today.

Okay, so let's take this slowly - you agree that modern temperature records aren't unprecedented, and that from a trivial examination of the past climate, we can see this has happened before.

Convince me. Find five periods of historical temperature change within say, the past 100,000 years, that match the historical temperature changes we've observed over the past 50 years. Now explain exactly all the natural factors that caused those past five periods of variation, and compare to the past 50 years.

Go!

When examined over the period of time that statistical analysis indicates is necessary to be able to reliably detect the trend expected from global warming, it is highly significant.

I'll argue that the period of time necessary is 100,000 years. How many years do you want to assert? 5? 10? Maybe 18 years?

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2012/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/to:2012/normalise

Re:Simple solution...

[tgibbs]

Cite some numbers here - if we continue at 0.1C/century warming, why should we assume any sort of catastrophe?

You seem to be experiencing a failure of reading comprehension. Which part of "None of the projections of climate science include what I would characterize as "catastrophic" global warming." did you fail to understand?

Oh, certainly there are physical mechanisms for natural climate change, but I don't have to model them in order for them to be true.

We seem to have another failure of comprehension here. Nobody is suggesting that the process of checking your work by doing the math magically causes your theory to be true. Rather, it is the way in which responsible scientists catch errors in their own ideas. Coming up with excuses for not doing the math to check his ideas is the mark of a crank, not a scientist.

Sure we've checked it mathematically - we've got indistinguishable periods of 50 years of warming, one of which is asserted to be "natural" and the other asserted to be due to human CO2. There is no discernible difference

It has been previously explained to you why this is nonsense. Try reading it again: "Surely, if you actually think this through, you will realize how ridiculous this is. If your living room is uncomfortably wrong, do you imagine that you can determine, solely by looking at the thermometer, whether it is too warm because it is a hot day--or because you left the heat on? No, you gather other information; you step outside to check the weather, you check the thermostat, you check whether you left the oven on." When there is "natural" climate change, there is other evidence of a change in "natural" mechanisms--a change in solar radiance, for example. Again, this is the sort of error that you fall into if you don't bother to "check your work" by mathematically modeling the physical mechanisms (whether you choose to call them "natural" or "unnatural").

Again, you seem to believe that a flawed, falsified model must be believed in the absence of another mathematical model. This isn't how science works - you don't need to prove something else right in order to prove a hypothesis wrong.

Considering how little you obviously know about science, your instruction to scientists regarding "how science works" carries little weight. In fact, science virtually always progresses by competing models (in the unlikely event that you actually wish to educate yourself, you might consider reading some Thomas Kuhn). Remember: "All models are wrong; that's why we call them models." So nitpicking somebody else's model does not make your model right. No model is perfect; you have to show that their model is wrong in a way that matters. How do you do that? You construct a better model, and you show that your improved model makes better predictions. And here is where the climate science "skeptics" have so miserably failed.

Re:Simple solution...

[haruchai]

What's this about 0.1C per century? The warming for the last 100 years is about 8 times higher and 2/3 of that has been in just the past 30 years.

And no La Nina cooling event, regardless of strength, has reduced the temp anomaly below zero or even 0.1C since 1976.

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

What's this about 0.1C per century?

Ah, typo. 0.1C/decade for the past century, probably a bit less. :)

And no La Nina cooling event, regardless of strength, has reduced the temp anomaly below zero or even 0.1C since 1976.

So, are you saying that in 1975, there was a La Nina cooling event that did reduce the temp anomaly below zero? You make it seem like 1976 was before the age of high CO2 emissions :)

And more importantly, this implies....what? We're rebounding out of a mini-ice age, we should *expect* temperatures to be on the rise. La Nina and El Nino, and other ocean oscillations, are major drivers of both global average temperature, and more importantly, regional climate effects (nobody ever experiences global average temperature, but regional climate effects are directly experienced).

Re:Simple solution...

[hsthompson69]

Which part of "None of the projections of climate science include what I would characterize as "catastrophic" global warming." did you fail to understand?

Well, wait a sec, color me corrected - if you truly believe that the state of the art climate science does not project any sort of catastrophe due to human contributions to global average temperature, and that business as usual, or even increased CO2 emissions aren't anything to worry about, then maybe you're just a lukewarmer like me :)

Coming up with excuses for not doing the math to check his ideas is the mark of a crank, not a scientist.

And you don't quite see that when you ask for a competing model before you're willing to accept the flaws in your own, that you're also making excuses?

When there is "natural" climate change, there is other evidence of a change in "natural" mechanisms--a change in solar radiance, for example.

You're making the bold assumption that we can and do observe all changes in the universe that have an effect on climate. Natural climate change can happen without you knowing its specific origin. In fact, right now, outside your window, the temperature is changing, but you can't tell if it's because some nearby plant is blocking a breeze, or if it's because heat is radiating out of your house, or if the humidity is changing due to some desiccant in your general vicinity.

The real world is not a laboratory, where everything that can be measured is measured, and complex systems can be decomposed into discrete parts for direct analysis. And to that point, you obviously have failed to find five (or even one) period of historical warming, in the past 100,000 years, similar to the past 50 years, but explained in detail via other mechanisms.

So nitpicking somebody else's model does not make your model right.

Exactly. Your model of CO2 isn't right simply because you'd like to nitpick straw-men models that don't yet exist.

No model is perfect; you have to show that their model is wrong in a way that matters. How do you do that?

You do that by having a model that is falsifiable, not one that responds to divergence from reality with ad hoc special pleadings. Astrology is a model. We know it is unfalsifiable. That is wrong in a way that matters.

Tennessee Universities

[ThatsNotPudding]

Call their bluff; announce an intent to entertain offers from other states to move their entire institutions, lock, stock, and intellectuals due to their services no longer being required by the state.

It's not just the Taliban that wants to go back to the 12th century.

Re:Tennessee Universities

[JazzHarper]

While that is unlikely to happen, for various reasons, it is quite possible that universities in other states could refuse to accept students from Tennessee schools. When state legislators are threatened with the prospect of not being able to send their precious spawn to Ivy League schools, they tend to modify their populist proposals.

Re:Tennessee Universities

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the bill before you make such conjecture.

Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary
school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any
public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any
teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand,
analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific
weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

Now, getting good teachers is another matter.

Re:Tennessee Universities

[Mr. Firewall]

Except that one of the Ivy League schools is IN Tennessee.

Re:Tennessee Universities

[HungWeiLo]

The senators' kids go to public schools? That's a riot.

Re:Tennessee Universities

[compro01]

Huh? Are we talking about the same Ivy League here? Neither Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Penn, Princeton, nor Yale are located in Tennessee.

Re:Tennessee Universities

[Mr. Firewall]

I thought Vandy was an ivy league school? What's the definition of "ivy league" anyway? Too painful to look it up on my phone...

Re:Tennessee Universities

[compro01]

The Ivy League is an NCAA conference formed of those 8 schools.

Vanderbilt is a "southern ivy", schools that are considered comparable in athletic and academic prestige, but aren't members of the Ivy League itself. There was an attempt in the 50s to create a "Southern Ivy League" athletic conference and another attempt in the 60s to create a similar "Magnolia League". Neither attempt got off the ground, but the naming is still used to refer to such institutions and "Ivy" in general gets used to refer to post-secondary institutions with a high level of athletic and academic prestige.

Correct stance wrong legislation

[Anonymous Coward]

They should definitely allow teachers to question scientific theories and teach students to think critically USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. This bill unfortunately seems to allow psuedo science to be taught as science.
Instead they should have something like a program which teaches evolution by using evolutionary algorithms to show its limits and bring up issues with the darwinian theory and whether it is complete etc. same goes for global warming. teach the scientific method, teach the flaws in theories, teach how scientists can be wrong but also why its likely they are right and the religious "theories": wrong.

Re:Correct stance wrong legislation

[hughJ]

The problem with questioning scientific theories in grade school is that the foundations that support the theories (and that refute the "controversies") are typically interdisciplinary, and likely far beyond the introductory level. The teachers themselves are hardly qualified to do this in a classroom setting, even if they're objective and not actively trying to steer the kids astray. Good luck getting into worthwhile debates of Mitochondrial DNA, radiometric dating, fossil records and continental drift. More time would need to be spent teaching those things than actually teaching Evolution.

I remember Dr. Krauss bandying about a statistic that more than 90% of middle school science teachers in the US have never taken a post-secondary science class. Now considering the general state of the US public school system and their obvious inconsistent ability to teach Evolution in the first place, I'm not sure how a teacher can critique something they've never even been exposed to properly.

No controversy

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no controversy on evolution, at least not among the people that matter.

Re:No controversy

[MachDelta]

Problem: In a democracy, everyone is (supposedly) equal. Therefore, 99 idiots and 1 Einstein steering a democratic ship will most likely run aground.

To be fair

[Baloroth]

Students who are unable to argue against those who attempt to oppose evolution on an argumentative basis are unlikely to ever go anywhere in the scientific community anyways. In other words, if the bill allows teachers to point out the arguments against evolution, and allows the students the freedom to argue against the teacher for those arguments freely, then I do not see it as being a problem. However, in reality most teachers will just fail or severely down-grade students who disagree with them, and if the bill does not include provisions to prevent that (which I doubt it does) then it is a terrible idea.

Fill disclosure: I am religious, and I do believe evolution is a valid and highly probably scientific hypothesis (I don't want to say I "believe in" it, because it isn't a matter of faith, it is a matter of reason). The two things in no way contradict each other and anyone who claims they do doesn't know what they're talking about (most probably, doesn't know anything about either religion or science and their respective fields).

Re:To be fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Arguing with someone who chooses to disregard science is not a skill indicative of scientific aptitude. You can apply all of the logic and evidence with the best imaginable skill, but it still doesn't work when the teacher dismisses all of the evidence as a ruse by Satan, and finds no logical fault in an omnipotent and heavy-handed God whose existence is impossible to verify. You can't argue science with these people until after you convince them that they are crazy.

My entire family is crazy. I was raised as a southern baptist, and seriously indoctrinated. I can still remember when I was twelve and I was overwhelmed in guilt every single time the idea that this was all bullshit even entered into the back of my mind. At that time, such thoughts never came forward for serious evaluation. The only thing bearable was just to go along with it, never questioning anything, not even to yourself, under penalty of extreme psychological discomfort. Any debates over the issue were accompanied by unbearable guilt for even tolerating an internal acknowledgment that the other person might have a point.

There's no healthy arguing with people like that. I am not quite sure how I got over that and turned out to be physicist.

Re:To be fair

[WastedMeat]

(Didn't mean to post as AC)

Arguing with someone who chooses to disregard science is not a skill indicative of scientific aptitude. You can apply all of the logic and evidence with the best imaginable skill, but it still doesn't work when the teacher dismisses all of the evidence as a ruse by Satan, and finds no logical fault in an omnipotent and heavy-handed God whose existence is impossible to verify. You can't argue science with these people until after you convince them that they are crazy.

My entire family is crazy. I was raised as a southern baptist, and seriously indoctrinated. I can still remember when I was twelve and I was overwhelmed in guilt every single time the idea that this was all bullshit even entered into the back of my mind. At that time, such thoughts never came forward for serious evaluation. The only thing bearable was just to go along with it, never questioning anything, not even to yourself, under penalty of extreme psychological discomfort. Any debates over the issue were accompanied by unbearable guilt for even tolerating an internal acknowledgment that the other person might have a point.

There's no healthy arguing with people like that. I am not quite sure how I got over that and turned out to be physicist.

Re:To be fair

[WastedMeat]

A good conclusion to my second paragraph would have been that the idea of being wrong about my imaginary zombie friend was literally inconceivable, in that there were actually psychological mechanisms that prevented the formulation of that complete thought.

Re:To be fair

[houghi]

Students who are unable to argue [...]

I went to school and had many discussions after class with one teacher. Basically I tried to be a smart ass and disprove him wrong. Her listened to me and proved me wrong on each and every issue. Explained me where I went wrong. Why faster then speed was not possible.
A year later I had a teacher who said "I am the teacher. It is that way because I say so."

What I learned because of this is a very crucial lesson: Understanding is more important then knowing.

Even Jesus(*) did not say "Because I said so!" He tried to make people think.

(*)Irrelevant if you see him as the son of God or as a fictional character or something else.

Re:To be fair

[webheaded]

I still think the OP has a point. Learning to support the points through debate/argument is still a valuable skill.

Re:To be fair

[WastedMeat]

I think that would be better served by arguments with peers. A teacher is an authority figure, and when they disagree with a child, there is an implication (if not an explicit assertion) that the child is wrong. If a teacher is going to teach evolution as a "theory" (quotes indicate the colloquial usage), they are not likely to acknowledge the validity or strengths of a student's argument. This is not a good environment in which to learn critical thinking.

Re:To be fair

[SirBitBucket]

Precisely, I mean this is where Al Gore was elected Senator!

Re:To be fair

[Hatta]

if the bill allows teachers to point out the arguments against evolution

There are none. Everything we know about biology only makes sense in light of evolution. What there are are misconceptions about evolution. They should be addressed in class, and the students should be educated as to why they are incorrect. Allowing teachers to teach misconceptions, and expect kids to be able to refute them, is never going to work.

Re:To be fair

[Baloroth]

There are arguments against evolution, most certainly. I never said they were solid arguments, but they do exist. One can produce an argument for virtually anything: arguments do not have to proceed demonstratively or according to strict logical structures (this does not invalidate the argumentative method in any way, it just puts limits on it's ability to establish certitude).

For example, one could argue against evolution that there is no satisfactorily established hypothesis for the origin of life. While evolution itself strictly speaking doesn't deal with that field, it does require some means of life originating from non-life (note that, strictly speaking, evolution doesn't care what that origin is: it could be, insofar as evolution itself is concerned, some supernatural means. Not to say that it is a good explanation, but that it is one). So, if science cannot explain the existence of life naturally, then how can it claim that life evolves naturally as well?

Never said it was a good argument: it is actually full of holes (for example, even if the origin of life is supernatural, it could still evolve according to natural rules). Finding those holes is an extremely useful intellectual exercise. To simply deny such arguments exist, instead of addressing them directly, is only to add more fuel to the anti-evolution fire. True, some people cannot actually be reasoned with and will deny it no matter what. But not everyone, and if you actually address the former people, and show others how they are wrong, you can bring all the reasonable people to your side (especially those who otherwise wouldn't be exposed to reasonable ideas), and really that is all your need. Not universal agreement (certainly not by some sort of imperial decree to stop all argument on a subject), but the agreement of all rational people. Like I said, probably not how this bill will turn out, but one can hope.

Re:To be fair

[wagnerrp]

Learning to support the points through logical debate is still a valuable skill. You cannot have a logical debate with someone who is operating on belief rather than logic and reason. Your opponent's conclusion was already decided before they started to analyze evidence, and thus the winning criteria of proving them wrong can never be achieved. If you can't win, there's no point in bothering to try. Attack the problem from another route, isolating them and marginalizing them in society, so their beliefs cannot cause the rest of us grief.

Re:To be fair

[Mr. Firewall]

Anyway, not much of value has been lost, maybe Tennessee won't have that many Nobel prizes in the next 100-200 years.

Well... they have Al Gore!

Re:To be fair

[Mr. Firewall]

Precisely, I mean this is where Al Gore was elected Senator!

TWO Al Gores! Senior and Junior!

Re:To be fair

[shutdown -p now]

500k people moved out of Tennessee in the last 5 years - here's your evidence.

Re:To be fair

[kurzweilfreak]

... if the bill allows teachers to point out the arguments against evolution, and allows the students the freedom to argue against the teacher for those arguments freely...

The problem with this is that grade school kids aren't really equipped with the tools to counter these kinds of arguments. It's easy to ASK a hard question; answering that question is another matter. Grade school kids don't have the background, research, or knowledge to answer those kind of questions.

"Well, if evolution were true then how come X?" This question most likely has an answer, probably not an obvious one, but one that a biologist could give. Grade school kids aren't biologists. They see that difficult question, don't know the answer, and think "Gee, that's a tough one! Maybe this teacher is right and this evolution thing is a lot of bullshit!"

This is why what's included in school curricula shouldn't be determined by the teachers, parents, or school boards; they really don't know WTF they're talking about when it comes to high level concepts like this. This is why we have entire college courses, degrees, fields of research, and academies of science: they are the experts at these high level fields. Who are you going to trust to make the right decisions for your child's education: an organization of biologists whose lives' work has been doing this kind of research, or the 6 Bible thumpers that got elected to the local school board and whose exposure to evolutionary theory is their preacher saying "We didn't come from no monkeys!"?

Re:To be fair

[kurzweilfreak]

To take it even further, unless you are a fundamentalist who believes in the literal word of Genesis and that it is word for word true and not just an allegory, then you have already taken out the need for Jesus to "save" us. If Genesis is only an allegory, then there never was a Fall because Eve never really ate from the tree of knowledge because it's just a story. So Biblical literallists are the only self-consistent ones. No literal Adam and Eve, no literal Fall, no need for a literal Savior.

Re:The Tyranny of the (Localized) Majority

[Kenja]

We won the civil war and are now stuck with them, they are as American as anyone.

I see progress being made.

[idbeholda]

Soon they'll allow the controversy of science to be taught in public schools.

I've never understood...

[JustAnotherIdiot]

...why so many places make such a big deal about evolution.
I was taught it in school with no one complaining, and I grew up in the loony, backwards state of Texas.

Re:I've never understood...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we are (allegedly) the product of divine creation, in the image of God himself.
To say we're the product of "random" chance, and that we're no different from animals around us is heresy.
It would mean we're nothing more than "soulless monkeys".

Plus, it disproves a large portion of Genesis; one of the few verifiable stories in religious text.
If the first - and arguably most important part - of the religious story ("why are we here?") is bunk, then it doesn't bode well for the rest of the claims made by those texts.

Then again, such problems don't seem to deter the Mormons. But that's a story for another time...

Re:I've never understood...

[Korin43]

Because we are (allegedly) the product of divine creation, in the image of God himself.

Hey now, that's Creationism, which is bad. This is Intellegent Design, which they're allowed to teach in schools:

Because we are (allegedly) the product of REDACTED creation, in the image of REDACTED.

See, clearly completely different!

Re:I've never understood...

[j0rbshua]

Consider yourself lucky, I graduated high school in 2003 in the backward state of Mississippi and had a 9th grade biology teacher pull the same crap. Basically said, no ones believes this so you won't be tested on it.

Re:I've never understood...

[compro01]

This is TENNESSEE. This was the state that produced the hilarity known as the Scopes trial and has hardly backtracked on it (other than a brief outbreak of sanity during the Apollo years) in 87 years.

Re:I've never understood...

[martas]

Because it is an "issue" recently and deliberately manufactured to serve the interests of men on a single-minded quest for power.

Would it be sufficient...

[JazzHarper]

to illustrate the controversy by simply screening "Inherit the Wind" in the classroom?

Fine

[fiannaFailMan]

Let's start teaching holocaust denial in history class then. It's a "controversy" too, right? And any lessons that touch on recent events should also teach the "controversy" about 9/11 being an inside job. Chemistry lessons should be augmented by alchemy.

If all alternative points of view (including the batshit insane ones) are equally valid, you have to.

Re:Fine

[Anonymous Coward]

If all alternative points of view (including the batshit insane ones)

You mean... Christianity?

Re:Fine

[CanHasDIY]

Let's start teaching holocaust denial in history class then.

They already do: it's referred to as "Manifest Destiny," and is the flimsy justification given to kids regarding the attempted genocide of the native American people. I'm sure someone will want to attempt to argue that point, but when you look at the facts objectively it becomes obvious the colonial settlers intentionally attempted to systematically wipe out an entire nation of people, in an effort to steal the native's land. /rant

Sometimes it seems there are more American Holocaust deniers here, than European Holocaust deniers in all the world.

Re:Fine

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

A more apposite example would be a statement that is in the legislators's holy book.

Psalm 104, verse 5:
"He hath founded the earth upon its foundations, so that it shall not be moved for ever"

If we accept that a religious text can be the basis for a controversy about science, then it follows that science classes should "teach the controversy" about heliocentric astronomy.

There is, by the way, not much Biblical support for the idea of scriptural inerrancy. Other Bible-based religions such as Judaism don't seem to have trouble with the idea that humans are the product of natural processes but still subject to divine law.

Re:Fine

[GameboyRMH]

Don't forget the moon landing, water fluoridation, the roundness of the Earth, and what aircraft contrails are made of.

Surely the students of tomorrow, when informed of all the equally valid theories out there, will arrive at a reasonable medium somewhere between hard, cold science and soft, warm batshit insanity.

Re:Fine

[theNAM666]

>Let's start teaching holocaust denial in history class then. It's a "controversy" too, right?
>And any lessons that touch on recent events should also teach the "controversy" about 9/11 being an inside job.
>Chemistry lessons should be augmented by alchemy.

>If all alternative points of view (including the batshit insane ones) are equally valid, you have to.

Been in a Kansas high school lately? Evidenly not!

Re:Fine

[mark-t]

That's still far too recent... there are many people alive today whose lives have been impacted by that incident,

In general, I would suggest that if you are going to try to teach alternative history, that you try to not attempt with anything more recent than about 500 years or so.

Re:Fine

[fiannaFailMan]

There is, by the way, not much Biblical support for the idea of scriptural inerrancy. Other Bible-based religions such as Judaism don't seem to have trouble with the idea that humans are the product of natural processes but still subject to divine law.

The Catholic church is another example, in fact they play down scripture and put more emphasis on tradition since they see themselves as the inheritors of St Peter. Pope John Paul II said that evolution is compatible with the faith.

Re:Fine

[artor3]

Disgusting. What was done to the Native Americans was terrible, but nothing like the Holocaust.

The vast majority of the deaths among Native Americans came from the various diseases brought over from Europe. Smallpox, measles, mumps, tuberculosis, malaria, typhus, cholera... Europeans had collected an impressive amount of plagues over the centuries, and introduced them all at once to an unprepared populace. That alone is estimated to have killed around 80% of the Native American population.

Many more Native Americans (particularly of the midwestern plains tribes) died to starvation, as the new settlers over-hunted the buffalo herds and left the natives without a reliable source of food. The early Americans in that case showed a callous disregard for the natives' well-being, but it was not a genocide.

Some genocides did take place. The well-known Trail of Tears killed around four thousand people through forced march. A less well-known, but much larger genocide also took place in the western states in the twenty years following the California gold rush, resulting in the deaths of around one hundred thousand people.

But to compare to the Holocaust? Eleven million people killed with machine-like efficiency? Fully 90% of the Jewish population of Germany and Poland? A similar percentage of Native Americans died, but the vast majority of those deaths were to sickness, not murder. The two cases are nothing alike, and it is absolutely disgusting that you would try to equate them.

Re:Fine

[Uberbah]

Other than the massacres, forced starvation, theft of land and possessions, treated as chattel...just because the U.S. government didn't employ gas chambers and ovens doesn't mean that they didn't perpetuate genocide on multiple native tribes.

And of course, what do we call forced migrations nowadays? "Ethnic cleansing". What do you think the Trail of Tears and pushing natives onto reservations was all about?

Re:Fine

[CanHasDIY]

Look:
It is a verifiable fact that the U.S. government broke every single treaty they made with the natives.

It is a verifiable fact that European transplants intentionally seeded the native population with disease to exterminate them.

Estimates place the number of Native Americans killed by European invaders anywhere between 1.8 and 100 million.

There's even a Wikipedia entry for the North American Genocide.

You can continue to deny what's in front of your face all you like, just know what sort of company you keep when you do so.

Re:Fine

[smaddox]

At least were I grew up (Dallas - Fort Worth area of Texas), there was significant coverage of native Americans, small pox blankets, the trail of tears, Cortez's domination of the Aztec's, etc. It wasn't romanticized (at least not past the elementary school depiction of Thanksgiving Day).

Re:Fine

[Myria]

They already do: it's referred to as "Manifest Destiny," and is the flimsy justification given to kids regarding the attempted genocide of the native American people. I'm sure someone will want to attempt to argue that point, but when you look at the facts objectively it becomes obvious the colonial settlers intentionally attempted to systematically wipe out an entire nation of people, in an effort to steal the native's land.

In my school, we did learn that. We were taught how a combination of European smallpox and force wiped out and/or forcefully relocated the native American populations. The "Trail of Tears" mentioned by sibling-poster is one of the things that we learned about.

I dislike Thanksgiving, which is, in effect, a celebration of genocide.

Re:Fine

[wagnerrp]

Come now, the holocaust never happened. Sure, millions of Jewish may have been captured and inducted into labor and prison camps by the Nazis during WWII. Sure, millions died in those camps, often times murdered and disposed of in open pit fires or incinerated in large furnaces, not necessarily in that order. However they weren't being ritualistically sacrificed to any deity as part of some perverse exploration into the occult. This was just plain and simple mass genocide. Calling it a holocaust is a misnomer.

Re:Fine

[shutdown -p now]

It's Jesus all the way down!

The Bill

[UninformedCoward]

In case you want to read the bill. I think 1D is the main issue.

Re:The Bill

[FrootLoops]

I don't find what's written terribly objectionable. How it gets applied in practice may be a different matter. Here's the guts of the bill:

...teachers shall be permitted to help students
understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths
and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being
taught.

Since "the Bible doesn't agree" isn't a scientific weakness of evolution, that argument wouldn't belong in the classroom.

...teacher[s] in a public school system of this state [shall not be prohibited] from helping students understand,
analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific
weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

Fine by me, so long as they really are talking about scientific strengths and weaknesses. The bill specifically addresses the religious controversy:

This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not
be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination
for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination
for or against religion or non-religion.

My only worry is that crackpots with Ph.D.'s promoting crazy theories might be considered "scientific" enough to warrant classroom discussion despite being an extreme minority in the scientific community.

Re:The Bill

[Peter Trepan]

(d) Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught. (e) This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion

In a region where the majority does not believe in evolution, it seems like this bill would help, not harm, the teaching of evolution in the classroom.

Re:The Bill

[UninformedCoward]

I thought the same thing after reading the actual bill. Creationism is a theory and now teachers can't be reprimanded for pointing out its weaknesses.

Re:The Bill

[Alsee]

In a rational and well informed world, there would be absolutely nothing objectionable about the bill. But of course we don't live in a rational or well informed world. The people raising this bill in the legislature, and the teachers who will embrace this bill in the classroom, all have the peculiar notion that Creationism qualifies as "scientific information" and that that Creationist hatchet jobs against evolution qualify as "objective scientific critique".

The intended purpose of the bill is to promote a particular religious doctrine and the primary effect of the bill will be to promote a particular doctrine, which renders the bill unconstitutional regardless of how the text is superficially worded.

The best-case scenario is that every teacher who tries to use this bill to spew garbage is rapidly identified and dragged into court and smacked down by a cluefull judge. The best case scenario is that untold students have their science education actively sabotaged for as short a time period as possible, while countless students have their educations even further crippled by massive education budget failures as cash-strapped school districts get slammed with massive damages and legal fees.

-

Stupidity. Not only is it not illegal...

[gestalt_n_pepper]

...it'll be required in public school courses, by law. The trouble with some legislators is that they don't just vote, they're allowed to drive too.

Freedom of Stupid

[Shoten]

Meh...they want to pass a law like that in their own state, I say let them.

I mean, it's not like every state can have people that go off to college and become highly educated members of society. Someone has to build the cars, right? :)

Re:Freedom of Stupid

[celle]

"Someone has to build the cars, right? :)"

    Have you seen the complexity and tolerance of the car parts used these days? I wouldn't want anyone with less than a B.A. degree in engineering to touch any of it. I certainly wouldn't trust it to anyone less since I will eventually be trusting those parts with the lives of my family.

Re:Freedom of Stupid

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Unfortunately building a modern vehicle, or any modern equipment, requires a highly educated workforce, flipping burgers or filling burritos not so much.

Make a Class

[RocketChild]

Why not just make a Bill that says science classes can teach things that deal with hypothesis, theory and proven ideas that have gone through the standard scientific method. And then make a non-science class as an elective that allows study of esoteric topics that have not gone through scientific methods. I'm sure the whole creationism thing would only take about a week to cover at most and I don't know what they would fill the rest of the semester with. But, I wish they would stop meddling with proven science and trying to cloud out the classroom with questionable information.

Re:Make a Class

[narcc]

I wish they would stop meddling with proven science and trying to cloud out the classroom with questionable information.

There's no such thing as "proven science". Further, all of science is by definition questionable. It wouldn't be science otherwise!

See, science is not a process that leads us iteratively toward "the truth"; it can't make such a declaration and still be science. (If this is difficult for you to understand, consider the possibility of two theories that explain some known data equally well.)

Primary and secondary education should focus on established science, that much is not in question, but we shouldn't confuse the process of science by calling what is presently accepted as "truth" or "fact" -- that would be a horrible disservice to the students and the the scientific enterprise as a whole.

It would be ok if we always did it

[fermion]

For instance, in Texas in history we need to teach the controversy of the Alamo. Have the kids research and debate if the heros of the Alamo were in fact primarily concerned with keeping slaver in the nation of texas, a basic right that would have taken away if Mexico's liberal no slavery policy were allowed to prevail.

There are many examples of this. In world history rather than focusing on wars, we could include the faith based authoritarian regimes and ask if faith has been used to create the oppress more than used to help the oppressed. Again, not take sides. Just have student read about the controversy in order to develop students better at problem solving.

We could do the same thing in literature, reading books that teach the controversy of religion, democracy, and capitalism.

My problem with teaching the controversy is that if I ask a christian why we have public school prayer when the bible prohibits it, they don't want to take about that controversy. So why are we taking about evolution when there is really nothing in the bible, or at the Christian testament, that prevents it from validity. Of course if they really wanted to pursue a controversy, they would be working on disavowing the trinity, something that no good protest, only the modern Catholics who follow the Council of Niceae, should believe.

Re:It would be ok if we always did it

[jader3rd]

why we have public school prayer when the bible prohibits it

Do you have book, chapter and verse on where the Bible prohibits prayers in school?

Re:It would be ok if we always did it

[houghi]

if they really wanted to pursue a controversy, they would be working on disavowing the trinity

Theologians can pursuade themselves of anything. Anyone who can worship a trinity and insists that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything -- just give him time to rationalize it.
                                                      Robert A. Heinlein, JOB: A Comedy of Justice

Re:It would be ok if we always did it

[LanMan04]

For instance, in Texas in history we need to teach the controversy of the Alamo.

I contend that the Alamo DOES INDEED have a basement...and my bicycle is being held there!

Controversy!

Re:It would be ok if we always did it

[blahplusplus]

" So why are we taking about evolution when there is really nothing in the bible, or at the Christian testament, that prevents it from validity."

Yes there is, having grown up in christendom it's quite obvious if evolution is true, then sin and death did not enter the world through disobedience. Christianity and the resurrection of christ hinge on sin existing, if it's all mythological sin doesn't exist and the 'punishment for sin' doesn't exist either (death). The purpose of christ dying and being raised makes no sense from a liberal christian standpoint. This is what makes religious people so frustrating. Their complete inability to reason.

Romans 5:14

"Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come."

Re:It would be ok if we always did it

[wagnerrp]

Matter exists as discrete particles. Oh wait, matter exists as a continuous wave. Oh wait, matter presents itself as a probability field that prevents us from ever truly knowing its properties. Shit!

Most laymen viewing modern particle physics from a distance would see some pretty spooky action.

Re:It would be ok if we always did it

[Mr. Firewall]

Do you have book, chapter and verse on where the Bible prohibits prayers in school?

Yes.

Matthew 6:5-6

Re:It would be ok if we always did it

[shutdown -p now]

Second Council Of Nicaea did not establish trinitarianism, it merely codified the already-existing practice in the creed. The first Nicaean council had in fact established trinitarianism as dogma when it dealt with Arians (it wasn't explicit, but in practice pretty much all who were opposed to Arius' teachings of the nature of Christ were trinitarians).

As a side note, Eastern Orthodox also recognize the Nicene creed, albeit in a slightly different version (which is still trinitarian).

Teaching in this state.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a mathematics/science teacher in this fine state, I don't have a huge problem with this. I just made my students write a paper on Russell's Teapot, so I feel like I balanced it out.

But seriously, anybody that thinks these two pieces of paper mean anything...they don't. They say they allow for these things, doesn't mean we have to. And we won't.

Re:Teaching in this state.

[martas]

You know, one of these days astronomers will actually observe a perfectly teapot-shaped object orbiting somewhere near Neptune, and we're all going to shit our pants.

Could have been great

[Dixie_Flatline]

It's too bad they didn't do this properly. There ARE controversies in evolutionary theory. They're not controversies in whether or not evolution works, but there IS disagreement in the specific mechanisms of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium or phyletic gradualism? Duke it out! Teach those controversies!

Oh wait, I guess I'm asking for science to be taught in science class. My bad.

Re:Could have been great

[wagnerrp]

I honestly don't understand why public schools can't teach religion. With so much of the world's cultures and politics deriving themselves from various religious ideologies, that seems like a pretty damned important topic for any well educated individual to be versed in. Start holding a religion class as a history/social science, and explore the groundwork of all the major world religions. That seems like it would be the perfect place for these creationism "controversies" to be hashed out.

Re:The Tyranny of the (Localized) Majority

[gestalt_n_pepper]

In retrospect, can't we give them the option of succession? The new state of Northern Mexico would admittedly, increase border problems, but think of the tax savings! (http://www.flapolitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3311)

Let me get this straight...

[Billy the Mountain]

So rather than using the tools of evolution, the students of Tennessee would learn to pray to god for a new vaccine?

Re:Let me get this straight...

[GameboyRMH]

Or bea...uh, I mean exorcise the "demons" out of the infected person, who no doubt brought the ailment upon themselves due to their sinful nature.

"Repent and accept the healing hand of GAWD! Expel the demons! Yes let 'em all out. Not on my shoes though."

Re:Let me get this straight...

[netsavior]

Why would you need a new vaccine? It's not like the genetic makeup of viruses can change over time through a process of natural selection. This is the same reason why we didn't need to invent any new antibiotics after penicillin.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[ajlisows]

Why would they pray to God for a new vaccine? Vaccines cause autism and are evil!

Re:allowing something

[jo_ham]

Regardless, I don't see what is wrong in teaching kids both evolution and the evidence for or against it, and creationism and the evidence for or against it. People need to be encouraged to reason not just memorize whichever view we decide is "right" and cram down their throats.

That's the whole point there *is* no evidence for or against Creationism - it's a made up story based on a work of fiction. It's not a scientific hypothesis that can be debated. It's a set of beliefs. Just like I believe there's an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. Shut up, there totally is! Prove that there isn't! You just have to take my word for it and believe that it is there.

The pros and cons of the theory of evolution, however (and the wider discussion about the Scientific Method) are suitable topics for discussion.

And this is why government should butt out of...

[donleyp]

... Education. Why is it we can individually choose everything important in our lives except who gets to teach our children and what curriculum they teach?!?

Great About Time

[Registered Coward v2]

Now teachers can address the controversy surrounding the existence of God if creationism come sup in the classroom.

Remember - A Sword cuts two ways.

Re:Great About Time

[wagnerrp]

What controversy? There is no evidence one way or another.

Re:Great About Time

[mfnickster]

Are you kidding, there exists huge controversy over this issue:

• Did Jehovah create the world in 6 days?
• Did Chaos give birth to Uranus and Gaia, who gave birth to the Titans?
• Did Quetzalcoatl and Tepeu make humans from mud, then wood, then corn?
• Did Tawa form the First World and humanity out of Tokpella, the Endless Space?
• Did Izanagi and Izanami create the heavens and earth, followed immediately by Japan?
• Did Svayambhu, self-manifested form of Brahman, impregnate the golden womb, creating Vishnu?

There are countless other theories that need to be taught. Unfortunately, there is little scientific agreement about any of them, so in order for the kids to make informed judgments about them, the theories will ALL have to be covered in great detail.

Another problem is science text publishers have been very lax about including this information. They should be required to cover the controversy as well.

Re:Great About Time

[wagnerrp]

Yes. There is no evidence. There are only stories. You can't create scientific controversy or any form of discussion if you have no data to back up any of the proposed theories.

Should sell a lot of t-shirts

[Yoik]

There is a series of very amusing ones on the subject.

The only "controversy" in any of this ..

[n5vb]

is manufactured. It's that some religious extremists in this country can't deal with the fact that the reality that hard science is discovering and exploring doesn't exactly match their creation myth of choice, and keep stirring the s*** because they're still trying to stuff that genie back in the bottle long after it's way too late.

There's only a "controversy" because they keep insisting it's "controversial" as a pretext to keep their foot in the door. And the fact is, creationism is not science, at best it's Bible-flavored pseudoscience that's already decided its conclusions and merely cherry-picks data to support those conclusions .. which is actually the opposite of science ..

Re:The only "controversy" in any of this ..

[na1led]

Creationism is something that only be taught to a 5 year old, because anyone old enough that doesn't believe in Santa Claus anymore will see right through the non-sense.

Re:The only "controversy" in any of this ..

[residieu]

Fundamentalists would just take that as proof that the Pope is an agent of Satan.

Social Studies Subject

[Jhyrryl]

This is a perfectly legitimate subject for a social studies classes. It should not be included in the hard science classes.

Re:Social Studies Subject

[Tancred]

The topic of Intelligent Design would also fit in an Abnormal Psychology class.

All you need to know about "Intelligent Design"

[tomkost]

Neil Tyson can explain it to even the most dense creationists.... IF they would only listen... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weu7Rh6dYrM

Good

[wanzeo]

By placing these issues in conflict, it forces students to think about them. Separating the issues only legitimizes the idea that critical thinking at school is compatible with made up certainties at home.

Time To End The Union?

[l0ungeb0y]

Considering the vast political and ideological decide between States like California, New York, Washington vs Georgia, Texas and Mississippi, wouldn't we be better off ending the Union of States and allowing like minded States to refactor into new Unions with new Constitutions? It seems our entire political system is at a partisan standstill with both sides stonewalling the other and a government that has racked up a debt unequaled in even recent history.

If States like Texas, Tennassee and Georgia want to live like wealth worshipping Taliban, let them. I for one think we'd be better off reevaluating the Union and it's effect on the population in general. At the rate were going, Civil War is not all that unlikely as the media continues to drive politics to further extremes. So perhaps a good look now and willingness to let go of the Union and getting a fresh political perspective could prevent our Nation's situation from getting worse. Besides, the Coastal and Northern Union would still maintain the largest GDP in the world without having to pay for the welfare of the barely literate parochial types in the Confederacy.

Re:Time To End The Union?

[Oswald McWeany]

Yet, you have to protect the people living in these states. I'm in South Carolina. If South Carolina seceeded- I'd hate to see what kind of government we would end up with.

The Federal government balances things out and protects me from the idiocy that is State government. The federal government protects me. South Carolina would not. I suspect the same is true for Texas, Tennassee, Georgia, etc- there is a large percent of the population who are not idiot bible-thumpers. There are people in those states who are not racist, religious bigots, etc.

We not wish to be subject to the theocrats in our states - just because the other states don't like the majority in our states that ARE theocrats.

Federalism balances out the extremes and helps protect the middle.

Re:Time To End The Union?

[l0ungeb0y]

Oh, you must be one of those "Real Americans".
Learn some rhetoric.

Re:Time To End The Union?

[CaseCrash]

Rhetoric solves nothing and I believe I was quite polite enough in responding to someone who suggested that I'm not American enough to continue to be part of the United States. Dissolving the Union would cause untold amounts of problems, economically and politically. and would solve none of the issues you seem to have. Besides, the nation is only on the brink of civil war if you believe the nuts whose job is scare everyone in order to raise ratings so they can sell you more crap. I've been in almost every state and worked or lived in several of them, north and south, east and west. There are plenty of Americans in every state that could be called bible thumpers, just as there are plenty of overly enthusiastic atheists. Most Americans are somewhere in the middle with maybe some religion, but also an understanding and appreciation of science, even if they don't really understand much of it. Stereotypes of the southern and midwestern states as ignorant raving Jesus humpers shouting "I aint no damn monkey!" are nonsense even if there are a few of those people out there.

My original statement stands. Yes, I am a Real American. And a southerner. And a person who understands science. Please take your secessionist bullshit elsewhere.

Re:Time To End The Union?

[SirBitBucket]

Perhaps the hippie states realize that the red states tend to be the ones with all the guns... Can you imagine how much more broke California would be if they got attacked by Texas?

Re:Time To End The Union?

[cmdr_klarg]

Yet, you have to protect the people living in these states. I'm in South Carolina. If South Carolina seceeded- I'd hate to see what kind of government we would end up with.

The Federal government balances things out and protects me from the idiocy that is State government. The federal government protects me. South Carolina would not. I suspect the same is true for Texas, Tennassee, Georgia, etc- there is a large percent of the population who are not idiot bible-thumpers. There are people in those states who are not racist, religious bigots, etc.

We not wish to be subject to the theocrats in our states - just because the other states don't like the majority in our states that ARE theocrats.

Federalism balances out the extremes and helps protect the middle.

Then you and the rest of the non-thumpers need to stand up for yourselves and tell those idiots to stick their theocracy where the sun doesn't shine. Until then, you will be lumped in with them.

Re:Time To End The Union?

[HungWeiLo]

But the ideological divide is more defined as urban vs rural within each state, rather than state vs state. In Oregon and Washington, for example, it's essentially liberals along the I-5 corridor near the seaports and hard rednecks outside of those pockets. Same with CA outside of LA and SF.

I guess that's why we have airplanes, so we can "flyover" those parts of the country. But it also makes any union disassembly very tricky, logistically speaking.

Re:Time To End The Union?

[butchersong]

This is a great idea! The best part is we don't even have to split up the union. All we have to do is limit the federal government via a strict interpretation of the constitution and allow individual states to decide matters on their own. We could all agree that the federal government is mostly just for signing international treaties and matters of military defense. Where do I sign up?

Re:Time To End The Union?

[shutdown -p now]

Why not move to those states where general politics are more to your liking? Societies which are strongly divided over basic issues tend to be pretty disfunctional; that's why we have the concept of sovereignty and freedom of movement - so that like people can get together to form societies they aren't alienated in.

From what I see about American federalism, it rather manages to take some of the worst points made by both sides, and put them together in a monstrosity that's even worse. I mean, lowering taxes while spending like mad is such a bright idea that's truly the best of both worlds, isn't it?

USA! Why you pretend you so advanced?

[Tomsk70]

Next it'll no doubt transpire that most states don't recognise gay marriage or even civil partnerships....oh.

It gets better

[Sebastopol]

My heart goes out to the intelligent youth in TN.

It gets better.

Re:It gets better

[Oswald McWeany]

I'm sure they are both glad that you are thinking of them.

Re:It gets better

[compro01]

It gets better.

When exactly? Other than a brief surge of sanity during the Apollo years, TN has steadfastly maintained this position for 87 years.

Re:This is what government education is

[Kenja]

So your claim is that without government funded education, only logic and reason would be taught? You must have never been to any private schools.

Re:And this is why government should butt out of..

[RazzleFrog]

You can home school. It's actually the government that is supposed to be protecting us from stuff like this. Otherwise a good portion of American schools would be teaching creation instead of evolution. Supposedly 40% of Americans still believe in Creation.

Evolution

[Murdoch5]

I don't understand why people are so against Evolution. Evolution doesn't go against Creationism, it can work with it. So maybe a "God" kick started the entire process and then Evolution took over and did the rest. People who are against Evolution because it can't be proven, well I would ask them to produce proof that a "God" exists. The existence of a holy book doesn't prove anything, it proves someone wrote a book and they made up some characters, there is literally no difference from a harry potter book or the bible, both written and both read and your never going to meet the characters.

Evolution exists! it's a fact, science has proven that animals, humans, plants, planets and the universe has evolved over time, what science hasn't proven is the existence of "God", having an open ended question doesn't prove "God" it just means that we don't know where the beginning is.

Whats my point, simple Evolution and Creationism are both valid streams of understanding, if your going to teach one teach the other. I believe in both, something must have happened to launch the universe into motion, but nothing is stopping evolution from taking it the rest of the way. I'm glad that now Evolution has to be taught, Evolution has occurred, it's a valid proven science, if your going to teach Creationism you have to be fair and teach Evolution.

Re:Evolution

[Tancred]

The ones against Evolution are either fundamentalists (young earthers, garden of eden literalists, etc) or are pandering to them. If their religious beliefs are malleable, they just fit god to whatever science shows (oh, so evolution happens, guess god's making that happen).

If you want to teach creationism, you should bring up several creation stories. And since they're not science, do it in a comparative religion class. Or if you've got an entirely privately funded school, feel free to mislead the kids any way you want. But if you do you'll burn in hell. Just kidding. There's no such thing as hell.

Woohooo

[Dionysus]

As a non-American, I hope the rest of the States follow suit. Today Theory of Evolution; tomorrow, Theory of Gravity :-D

Re:Woohooo

[shutdown -p now]

Can't muck around with theory of gravity like that, bombs will stop working.

Re:The Tyranny of the (Localized) Majority

[CubicleZombie]

We won the civil war and are now stuck with them, they are as American as anyone.

We're stuck with California, too.

Re:allowing something

[betterunixthanunix]

Regardless, I don't see what is wrong in teaching kids both evolution and the evidence for or against it

I agree, except that there is no strong evidence "against" the theory of evolution; there are gaps in the theory, phenomena that are yet to be explained, but nothing that creates any major problem with the theory itself (aside from the fact that some pieces of the theory are still missing).

creationism and the evidence for or against it

What evidence is there to support creationism as a scientific theory? An ancient story book and a bunch of good feelings about it are not evidence.

FINALLY, we can teach all types of controversies!

[Anonymous Coward]

"on evolution, global warming and other scientific subjects"

Now we can properly cover flat-earth theory in geography, phlogiston in chemistry, and alternatives to the germ THEORY of disease in biology. Also we can talk about spontaneous generation in sex-ed class.

Re:Why so scared?

[CanHasDIY]

If you (or anyone, for that matter) have a valid hypothesis worth study, then by all means bring it up! Any real scientist worth their salt would jump at the opportunity to explore a heretofore unknown theory.

However, if your entire scientific platform boils down to "God did it, now stop asking questions," well, you might as well join Santorum on his dinosaur and ride off into the sunset.

And by sunset, I mean 'big-ass volcano.'

Re:Financial Incentives

[dgatwood]

Speaking as someone from Tennessee who works for a very large and well-respected corporation, I take issue with that assertion. The quality of an education system has little bearing on quality of a particular student's education. The intelligent find ways to educate themselves even in the absence of proper teaching.

Hey, don't blame me!

[CubicleZombie]

I believe in the invisible deity in the sky, but I don't want it taught in schools. That's faith, and there's already a place to learn that. And it's optional.

Blame the politicians who are overstepping their authority. It's as simple as that. State legislature has no business manipulating curriculum for any purpose. Federal government has even less authority.

Re:Hey, don't blame me!

[Tancred]

Good comment. Except:

Federal government has even less authority.

I think here we have an example where the federal government should step in if states start teaching religion.

Re:Hey, don't blame me!

[Tancred]

Obama might be religious, but I'm not aware of him weakening the separation of church and state. In my more optimistic moments, I think he might be just acting the part. And I see religion slowly losing its hold on the U.S., so I think there is an escape from this lunacy.

Re:Tired of this debate

[betterunixthanunix]

So the lesson plan would be this:

1. Cover evolution, the evidence for it, well known examples, etc.
2. Cover creationism, present no evidence (there is none), do not bother discussing science because creationism is not science.
3. Let the children decide for themselves

Did I forget something?

Great idea!!

[oodaloop]

As long as they include the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'm fine with it.

Re:Great idea!!

[na1led]

And the Rolling Meatball Monster.

Re:You're not a Fundie.

[inasity_rules]

I'd say a better descriptive term (which allows us to include all sorts of people), is Single Issue Fanaticism. Siths... uh SIFs are not a reasonable people. Fundamentalism is merely a specific case of this disease...

Re:allowing something

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not talking about someone making an arbitrary decision about a "view". We're talking about an exhaustively studied natural process, and the results of those studies. When there is a massive consensus in the scientific community, it's hard for me to grasp how people who know little more than what they got from a high school course start claiming to be able to expertly refute that consensus...

Re:Tired of this debate

[icebraining]

Except Creation is not a scientific theory.

To be fair

[Cro Magnon]

This IS Tennessee. I have seen no evidence of evolution in the people of Tennessee.

Re:TN kids - here's what to wear to scince class n

[GameboyRMH]

LOL nice XD

Re:diseases

[mark-t]

Unlikely that would work... even if forced upon them, many would sooner go to their graves than deny their conviction. All, in their opinion, you'd be doing is making martyrs out of them.

Re:TN kids - here's what to wear to scince class n

[Tancred]

Those are awesome. I have no connection to them but I wish them many sales.

Re:allowing something

[ILongForDarkness]

So if there is no evidence what is the problem? Knowledge about a topic doesn't mean you have to agree with it. I do agree with you though that other than possibly a brief mention that the topic was very controversial when it came out because it was against the normal religious view (just like with Galileo though for some reason that doesn't create as much angst as creationism, perhaps the reason is in the name ;-)) and that some people still don't agree with it. Leave it to history or philosophy class or whatever to get into the details. An elective course in the history of science, or history of "reason" or whatever would be nice, I would have taken it. I'm a physicist, but I like to know the context about what I learn. Why did it take so long to figure out (limitations in thinking (the west forgetting that the world is round), limitations on available tech (eg. Hubble constant), dependent on prior experiments etc).

I'm agnostic but I think there is a clear difference between your pink unicorn and other religions in that ~2B people say a God like the God in the bible exists, many more that gods exist, others that spiritual things exist while not necessarily requiring a god in a personal form etc. Ignoring something with such a huge impact on society, and the tempo of science is crazy IMHO. Parents typically aren't qualified to teach their kids, they might know some things about some things but the whole idea of a public education is to ensure that there is some standard for knowledge that everyone should know in society not just people that happen to have parents that know about that particular topic.

Is Intelligent Design really (not) scientific?

[Theovon]

One of the commenters pointed to this article:

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/832

It essentially makes an information theoretic argument that some unspecified designer may need to be invoked to better explain modern observations of biological complexity. That is, they claim (but I don't see the evidence) that certain biological configurations are better or more easily explained or explainable at all if we assume that there was some intent behind some aspect of resulting organisms. I skimmed the article, but I didn't notice it saying anything at all about irreducible complexity. It simply mentions that some things have much too high of an information content to be plausibly the result of evolution according to completely natural processes.

As I see it, the assumption that the governing processes are entirely natural is simpler, because it does not invoke the requirement for some external influence. They also make no claims in regard to the nature of these outside influences. Moreover, evolutionary theory doesn't preclude that some aliens or something may have had influence. It simply declines to explain in those terms, because there's no difference between an intelligent alien tweaking things in some imperceptible way versus some extra radiation causing some mutations and some specific ecological niche favoring certain traits. They seem to be implying that they can CALCULATE that certain biological complexity is extremely unlikely given our basic understanding of mutation and selection. But then again, everything we observe is a priori extremely improbable it's just that we have inordinate amounts of time and space for those improbable events to become probable, and we have evidence of the time scale from geology. We don't, however, have any direct evidence that there was anything other than planet-local natural influences behind evolution, and it's hard to define what exactly is and is not "natural."

So, is this ID article just being vague? Or are they making some interesting point? I don't just want to dismiss it as creationist dogma. I think that an information theoretic analysis is warranted. I just don't trust their understanding of the science or their underlying motivations.

Re:Is Intelligent Design really (not) scientific?

[Tim C]

I don't have time to read it properly now (I'm at work), but the issue may be a lack of understanding of what a scientific theory actually is - that is, that it must be falsifiable. This means that a theory must make predictions that can be tested; e.g. "if I do X, I expect Y to happen". If you do X, and Y happens, then you have evidence to support the theory; if Z happens, you must either modify your theory or throw it out and look for one that does explain the observations.

Intelligent Design, as I understand it, makes no such predictions; it merely says "these things are too complex to be due to chance, therefore they aren't". The fundamental thing to understand is that even if that is correct it is not a theory in the scientific sense, and so should not be taught in science class. By all means use it to investigate evolution and attempt to demonstrate that evolution is wrong; once you succeed, come up with a new scientific theory and teach that in science class.

Politics is failing us

[RichMan]

The whole thing comes down to politics. School boards are elected. Higher up politicians distribute funds to school boards. There are some fairly vocal individuals who may or may not represent the majority but have the ability to stir up powerful emotions among the electorate.

Proper democracy requires an educated informed electorate to function correctly. Proper democracy does not provide a way to bootstrap the system where the fundamental requirements are lacking.

Re:Tired of this debate

[Tancred]

But which non-scientific views deserve equal air time in a science class?

If I was teaching a biology class, I might give a mention to "Intelligent" Design. Something like "but some people think their god just put all this evidence here to mess with us."

comment style

[micahraleigh]

If general belief in evolution was not based on ad hominem attacks ... how would these comments look different?

Re:comment style

[n6kuy]

Hear, hear!

Re:comment style

[geekoid]

I cna't parse tyoyur sentence.

evolution isn't based on ad homs. Why would you think so?

BTW: evolution doesn't require belief, it's a fact.

Re:comment style

[micahraleigh]

>> evolution isn't based on ad homs. Why would you think so? I was making an observation about the style of the comments. Regardless of why people believe in evolution, folks here are name-calling like it is the only thing holding up the theory. Anyway, sorry for being hard to parse. It was a little indirect.

Teachers allowed to teach non-sense.

[na1led]

I don't understand how some people can be so brain dead when it comes to common sense. How can you compare Myth with Facts as an alternate solution to the answer? Whats the point in teaching Science if your going to turn Fact into Fiction, and Fiction into Fact. People must have their head screwed on wrong.

It's funny because Oak Ridge is in Tennessee.

[VIPERsssss]

We know enough about radiation to make nuclear bombs, but not enough to correctly date geologic strata.

Re:Why so scared?

[MightyMartian]

There is no theory of Creationism. It is not science, therefore it has no place in the science class room.

bill sponsor claims he's for "small gov't"

[ffflala]

http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/48696/bo-watson
"A smaller government is more effective at addressing the needs of individuals. Bo believes that the government that is closest to home is the best, and that is why he chose to run for office in State Government."

http://ltgov.tn.gov/2011/04/lt-gov-ramsey-to-appoint-sen-watson-as-next-speaker-pro-tempore/Lt. Gov Ramsey said Watson's "tireless work on issues of government reform has been an inspiration to all of us striving to make state government as small, efficient and transparent as possible."

How exactly does micromanaging school curricula --down to the very topic-- by the state legislature count as small government, again? It seems like those who trumpet "small government" are the quickest to use government as a big, nosy cudgel to impose their beliefs upon citizens, and to compel or prohibit citizens' actions.

Re:bill sponsor claims he's for "small gov't"

[butchersong]

I don't see a conflict there. It's small government because Tennessee is smaller than the entire US. If the people of Tennessee really want to allow the inclusion of non-scientific theories of creation while covering discussion about natural selection... ok I don't really care. That's be beauty of state level government. If your rep at the state level does something stupid you can go see him slap him upside the head (figuratively) and let him know you won't be voting for him anymore. I guarantee it's a lot easier to reach him than your senator in Washington. There is no reason that limited federal government types would have the same position for state level government. Their position might be "well let California do what it wants and we'll do what we want".

Solution: End public education

[Sean]

How many of you had a good experience your public school system?

I'd rather have no public education system at all. Let it all be private. It would be far less expensive, and parents could send their children to schools for indoctrination in the manner of their choosing.

Re:Solution: End public education

[geekoid]

I had a great experience. I learned how to speak in public, calculate topography, understand poetry, rebuild an engine, bake a cake, how to calculate rocket trajectory, build circuits, plan DnD, geology, program in Fortran, and Cobol.

In my experience, most people complaining about not learning anything in high school weren't trying.

So what?

[sl4shd0rk]

Were almost past the tipping point where the 'controversy' will simply not matter anymore because it will be too late to do anything about it. If we are destined to be governed by a society of ignorant, narrow minded, dogmatic fools then we will cease to exist by our own lack of ability to change in order to stop the inevitable. This, by definition, is exactly evolution in process.

Re:allowing something

[ILongForDarkness]

but nothing that creates any major problem with the theory itself (aside from the fact that some pieces of the theory are still missing).

So teach that.

What evidence is there to support creationism as a scientific theory? An ancient story book and a bunch of good feelings about it are not evidence.

So again teach that. I'm not saying that schools should teach creationism like it is an equally valid theory. Screw over the religious nutjobs by disproving creationism. Ignoring the fact that a large number of people believe it and that it was what made Darwin so cautious about discussing evolution and slowed scientific process are valid things to teach. Ignoring things because they touch on religion is crazy. It would be like teaching computer science but just ignoring that Java exists and refusing to teach it, not that there isn't interest or a use for it, but just because of some arbitrary idea that "those things are best lernt from your parent"

To prempt constitutionalists:

1) I'm not american so I don't care.
2) Teaching that an idea exists doesn't not equal teaching that an idea is right, or setting rules biasing people that believe one thing our another.

Re:Let the circle jerking begin!

[Tancred]

Well, what a privilege. Let me be the first to introduce myself to you! I'm an atheist who wouldn't force you to give up your religious beliefs.

Re:Why so scared?

[semi-extrinsic]

Yes, the scientific community, having refined the theory of evolution for hundreds of years using evidence that would fill a large library, is shaking in its boots at the prospect of Tennessee high school students discovering a flaw in their theory. Especially the fact that this revelation could come from being taught fundamentalist religious worldviews under the guise of science.

16/18+

[vinlud]

Religion should be considered to be for adults only. We don't allow children to be involved with drugs, alcohol, voting, sex and so on legally before they've grown up to teenagers, why should brainwashing with a single particular religion be any different?

Re:allowing something

[ILongForDarkness]

Sorry who said anything about refuting anything? My understanding from the op was that they were going to be allowed to teach creation theory. It doesn't mean that they have to teach it as being right. Heck they can spend 10 hrs teaching why it is stupid for all I care. I'm a physicist and an agnostic but I like knowledge too much to ignore ideas just because they are inconvenient. Creationism had a huge impact on the theory of evolution in terms of how open people were with their results, how they balanced the facts with their beliefs, the legality of teaching it etc. Ignoring context because we don't agree with the other side is ludicrous.

Re:Tired of this debate

[na1led]

In order to cover creationism, you'd also need a major in Physics to explain how the creator existed for eternity.

welcome to the American Taliban

[cedrick12]

AKA: The Republican Party.

Your Problem

[AliasMarlowe]

I think everybody who's pro evolution is just as closed minded as those who follow the christian beliefs.

What you think is utterly and completely irrelevant to the reality of the Universe. Impartial reproducible observations are relevant. Our incomplete knowledge of how reality operates is obtained and refined through application of the Scientific method. The observable evidence is overwhelmingly that evolution has occurred and continues to occur, and overwhelmingly that there is no "intelligent designer".

Re:allowing something

[tendrousbeastie]

Well, you've just made the decision for everyone that the only relevant source of truth is empirical observable scientific data.

Please take a crash course of philosophy from around 1500 onwards (with a brief detour via Plato) and then come back and justify your position. (also, please read some philosophy of science.. Popper, Kuhn, etc.)

Perspective

[Bobfrankly1]

I think it's quite interesting to see people in the U.S. complain about a congress that gets nothing done, each side staunchly refusing to compromise, loudly announcing how right they are, and wrong anyone else is. The "my way or the highway" mentality. Here it is on display.

Paddle Faster boys..

[Starfleet Command]

I hear banjo music!! This is troubling. I really hope VA does not follow this yahoo route.

4 legs, 6 limbs

[number6x]

Sure they have 4 legs. And 2 arms!

A better way to get a fundamentalist confused is to ask them "Who was created first, Adam and Eve or the animals?"

Tell them to check both the first and second chapter of Genesis. If they stop after the first, they will only have one answer. It cannot have hapened both ways, it must be one or the other (or neither), so therefore the Bible is not 100% true. At minimum one chapter or the other must be false. It could be that both are false, but they might burn you at the stake for saying that.

If you don't know the answer, it only takes a few minutes to read both chapters. Then follow up and ask 'Was Adam or Eve created first? Or, were they created at the same time?" (the answer is both. Adam was created first and they were created at exactly the same time).

Self consistency is not a strong point in the Bible. That is very strange because any scientist will tell you that the universe is amazingly self consistent. Any seeming paradoxes are usually signs that our understanding and knowledge is lacking. If Both the universe and the bible are both from the same author, you would think that they would show the same level of self consistency.

How do I know the Bible isn't 100% true? Because my Bible tells me so.

The only thing I can see in Genesis that is an absolute truth is near the start of chapter 2. The bit about the harvest being ready and not a man to be found. Any woman will confirm that when there is work to be done there is never a Man around :)

Re:4 legs, 6 limbs

[Empiric]

A better way to get a fundamentalist confused is to ask them "Who was created first, Adam and Eve or the animals?"

1. Animals per se
2. Pre-adamic humans
3. -Eve-.
4. Adam's animals

Next?

Note: 4 requires understanding that definition and creation are quite similar things, per long-standing note in Western Philosophy (see subjective identity versus objective identity). 3 is stated that way by me so you don't veer from failing to open your mind enough for a critical insight that answers vast tracts of the moral dilemmas 99% of the population is, and you will remain, permanently stuck on. Don't worry, I'll clarify later for you (disclaimer: may be personally catastrophic for you at that time), since right now you aren't making the effort to -deserve- to understand 3. ;)

Re:4 legs, 6 limbs

[Empiric]

He said, "O Lord, there are many around the drinking trough, but there is nothing in the cistern."

--Thomas

Eh, couldn't resist.

Re:4 legs, 6 limbs

[MrKettlePot]

Fairy Tales, blah blah. The first chapters of Genesis are simply oral histories of creation stories and conflict when reading from a scientific paradigm. They are prose and not factually accurate. They are metaphysically accurate: God created stuff, man was pretty much the best and eventually gained the ability to distinguish right from wrong. The book is written to last thousands of years and still maintain its authority. If you notice the bible is pretty short on facts and figures (when they exist they are mostly estimates) and more about purpose written with themes and motifs: service, sacrifice, love, and compassion. If you read it like a history book you've missed the point.

Re:4 legs, 6 limbs

[number6x]

1. Animals per se 2. Pre-adamic humans 3. -Eve-. 4. Adam's animals So Adam isn't in the list of those created?

Re:4 legs, 6 limbs

[Empiric]

2.5.

Though, for further consideration, from a scientific viewpoint, when would a clone be -first- "created"?

Re:4 legs, 6 limbs

[number6x]

Thanks. Adam 2.5, I like it! Good name for a band.

But the Bible says Adam and Eve were created at the same time (as well as the story of Eve's later creation with the rib thing).

What's the explanation there, 2 Eve's? Which one is the sinner? Or was one killed off before the second season episodes, the second story is true and the first story was just a dream Like on Dallas? Or could it be like the 2 Darins on Bewitched?

It's just not self consistent enough for me.

Re:4 legs, 6 limbs

[Empiric]

But the Bible says Adam and Eve were created at the same time (as well as the story of Eve's later creation with the rib thing).

Actually... it doesn't. Review the exact words used with respect to Adam and how he came to be in the Garden, and which allegorical "day" female (and male) humans per se were created on, and which "day" Eve was.

"Sin" is, to be specific, disobedience to God. This creates a specific metaphysical scope. The previous humans would not have been, within this model, moral agents in the same sense as Adam and Eve. I suggest, considering for yourself carefully what the implications of this would be.

But, I phrase things relatively poorly. Here's something better said:

"When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter the kingdom."

Re:4 legs, 6 limbs

[number6x]

Re-read it and I still get big differences between chapters 1 and 2.

Chapter 1:

1. Fish
2. Fowl
3. Terrestrial animals
4. Man and woman at the same time

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them

Chapter 2:

1. Man
2. Terrestrial animals
3. Fowl
4. Woman

• No Fish in the second story of creation?

I know that these two stories of creation are from seperate sources in history and were gathered together to form the first chapters of the bible. The are seperated by many years in their origins and probably originate from different peoples. The second one, begining around Chapter 2 verse 4, is older and more in keeping with ancient Hebrew sources. Chapter 1 and the first verses of Chapter 2 are much younger. Just listen to the 'voice' of the author to denote the change.

It's quite interesting to read the bible oldest to youngest passages. It is amazing how the view of God depicted in the Bible transforms over time from a local deity among otthers into an all powerful, universal, super-god. I'm not sure how fundamentalists handle that. Since I don't read the Bible literally, I've got no problem with it.

Thanks again.

Re:4 legs, 6 limbs

[Empiric]

Somewhere between "allegory" and "direct contradiction a few paragraphs apart that the whole history of Judaism somehow amazingly missed", is the proper division and understanding of what's literal and what's not, I suggest.

Good luck.

Re:4 legs, 6 limbs

[Imrik]

Having just read them, the only disagreement is on the order of the plants, which you didn't mention. The first chapter doesn't say that God created man and woman at the same time, just that he created them both. For the animals, the second chapter uses past tense for their creation and present tense for bringing them before Adam meaning they had already been created at some point.

Re:4 legs, 6 limbs

[Mr. Firewall]

A better way to get a fundamentalist confused is to ask them "Who was created first, Adam and Eve or the animals?"

An even better way to get a fundamentalist confused is to ask:

"If we're the product of Intelligent Design, why is the playground next to the sewer?"

Re:4 legs, 6 limbs

[Mr. Firewall]

"Sin" is, to be specific, disobedience to God.

Uh, no.

Hamartia (the word that is translated "sin" in English bibles) is an old Hebrew archery term that means "missing the mark" or "falling short of the mark." There is no element of disobedience in its meaning.

Re:4 legs, 6 limbs

[MadFan]

The first chapter gives the order in creation, the second chapter doesn't give an order hence the two do not conflict. It's like me making my bed at 8am then making my breakfast at 9 am. then I rang my mum and said I made breakfast and made my bed. Both are true, only 1 gives the order explicitly.

Re:4 legs, 6 limbs

[Ginger Unicorn]

If you read it like a history book you've missed the point.

Which is the entire beef here. If creationists read the bible like a history / science textbook and try to inflict their mixed-up ideas on the rest of us, we have to respond to their argument by analysing the validity of the bible as a science/history text book.

You can't attack someone for addressing the argument raised.

The scientist's side got it wrong, too, though!

[beh]

From TFA:
In a statement sent to legislators, eight members of the National Academy of Science said that, in practice, the bill will likely [...] harm the state's national reputation[...]

The scientists got it wrong as well - thanks to blogging, like the publication here on Slashdot, the bill harms the state's INTERnational reputation... ;-)

Re:The scientist's side got it wrong, too, though!

[isorox]

From TFA:
In a statement sent to legislators, eight members of the National Academy of Science said that, in practice, the bill will likely [...] harm the state's national reputation[...]

The scientists got it wrong as well - thanks to blogging, like the publication here on Slashdot, the bill harms the state's INTERnational reputation... ;-)

Actually I'd say it helps. Until reading this, I (as a foreigner) assumed that the Thicker States of America had already banned evolution from being mentioned in the classroom, and this allowed teachers to say something along the lines of "Here's a scientific theory based around the evidence that presents itself. A bit like gravity. No doubt, like gravity, it will be modified at some point in the future, but there's a great deal of evidence to prove it's mostly right. On the other hand here's another theory, with no evidence for, and plenty of evidence against, that prides itself that you have to accept it on faith alone."

Re:The scientist's side got it wrong, too, though!

[Jawnn]

Well, yeah. And besides. Them Tennessee hicks are a bunch of Johnny-come-latelies when it comes to making their school children stupid as a matter of policy. Our state board of education (TX) pulled these shenanigans years ago.
The truly sad part is that these "believers" honestly believe that this is the right thing to do. It's not really malicious; deeply and dangerously ignorant, but not done out of arrogance, spite or any of the ugly motivations that it's so tempting to suspect as the cause. They simply can't grasp that anyone would seriously consider another "story" about how we came to be. We could go into the fear behind such narrow-minded and desperately-clung-to beliefs, but that would be a bit off topic.

Re:The scientist's side got it wrong, too, though!

[BlueStrat]

Them Tennessee hicks are a bunch of Johnny-come-latelies when it comes to making their school children stupid as a matter of policy.

Yeah, thank goodness we have the shining examples of Detroit, LA, and NYC public school systems to show those "hicks" what a real, sophisticated education system is!

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h103/stratman_el84/Junk/detro.jpg

No, I don't believe in a 4,000-year-old Earth (6,000? I dunno the exact claims) or that man sprang into being in modern form with a wave of God's hand. Now, I'm not sure (and neither can anyone else be sure) what caused the Big Bang, what exactly "banged" and where it came from, or who/what created it in the first place. Insufficient data. God? Aliens from another universe? The Giant Panda-King Of The Known Multiverse? Who knows?

That being said, I don't think you come off well dumping on the entire TN population and school system. People in glass houses and all.

Strat

Re:The scientist's side got it wrong, too, though!

[Openstandards.net]

"with no evidence for"? How would you know, being unwilling to hear the controversy? You're presuming to completely understand the counter-argument without hearing it. I find it interesting that so many people here are presuming it will be a religious discussion, and consider the assertions in the theories of evolution to be unquestionable, with any attempt to scrutinize to be coming from a lower intelligence (which is a purely arrogant assumption.)

There are purely scientific discussions about the weaknesses of the theories of evolution, such as discussion of the unproven assumptions our conclusions are often based on.

I've learned that as a species, our brains are not only prone to believe assumptions, we practically require them to do tasks like drive a car in the night in a blizzard. I suspect the average person makes a minimum of 100-1000 false assumptions per day.

This nature of ours is part of the reason we've have been very wrong about scientific claims in the past. It baffles me how many people claim to be scientific, yet consider the assumptions used to draw scientific conclusions to be unquestionably holy, clearly directing their need to possess faith into what they believe to be scientific conclusions of a higher intelligence (arrogance).

For example, how do you know that radioactive decay rates have been constant throughout time, one of the presumptions built into the dating of fossils? Remember when we were taught that all the oil and gas had to be created by plants because hydrocarbons could only come from living organisms? Is that mathematically possible? Have you measured the quantity of plants required for this assumption to be true? These assumptions have been taught in our schools very recently as unquestionable truths.

http://io9.com/5619954/the-sun-is-changing-the-rate-of-radioactive-decay-and-breaking-the-rules-of-chemistry

Re:The scientist's side got it wrong, too, though!

[morgauxo]

Nope, it's not THAT bad. Although I suspect maybe in parts of the country... but I wouldn't know about that.

Re:You're not a Fundie.

[residieu]

Like, if you're Catholic, you're not Christian; which baffles me as to why Rick Santorum is doing so well among Evangelicals.

Because apparently the only thing Santorum knows about Catholicism is that birth control and abortion are bad.

Re:allowing something

[residieu]

"Teaching the Controversy" could be a fruitful exercise as it gives the students tools to argue with creationists. "Ah yes, my teacher addressed that argument, turns out it's not valid because of X, Y, and Z" or "Yes, we learned about that in school, but these pieces of evidence support evolution..."

Re:Why so scared?

[mbrod]

If you (or anyone, for that matter) have a valid hypothesis worth study, then by all means bring it up! Any real scientist worth their salt would jump at the opportunity to explore a heretofore unknown theory.

Laughable. Science today is about getting funding for the next project. Going on an adventure to explore unknown theories is a fairy tale.

Re:Why so scared?

[residieu]

I think the fear is that the people writing the curricula are not good scientists and will use this law as an excuse to "disprove" evolution to the children.

Re:Tired of this debate

[residieu]

Luckily the "lesson" on creationism is pretty quick. "Some people believe an intelligent being, such as a God, created the Earth. Next lesson"

Re:Financial Incentives

[dgatwood]

Dude. I'm not saying that the quality of education shouldn't be improved for the people in the middle. I'm saying that it isn't in the best interests of the company doing the hiring to reject someone in the hopes that doing so might somehow magically cause that person's home state to change its political beliefs.

First, it probably won't change things. The reason this is happening is that a sizable percentage of people in that state have religious beliefs that run counter to evolution. The people who believe in strict creationism aren't going to change their beliefs just because a bunch of schools won't take their kids. Statistically, the majority of their kids will choose to attend a religious institution anyway, so it doesn't affect them much. And because they have strong ties to the local culture, the majority who do not go to a religious institution will go to a college that is not very far away. Thus, unless the state schools in Tennessee made the decision to reject students whose counties elected to take advantage of the law (which would hurt enrollment), it is unlikely that college entrance policies will have any impact on this law.

Similarly, they're not going to change their beliefs because a company in another state won't hire them. Statistically, the majority of their kids will choose jobs within about a 100 mile radius because they have strong ties to the culture of that area. Thus, those measures cannot practically cause the Tennessee legislature to reverse such legislation because the majority of their constituents won't be impacted by those measures, and thus won't have reason to pressure the legislature to do so.

More importantly, the people such measures would most harshly affect—the people whose kids can't wait to get out of there—are likely to be in the minority by a fair margin. When it comes to causing political change, it really doesn't matter how much you hurt a minority group because they will always be in the minority and cannot realistically hope to change the balance of power (short of committing genocide, anyway).

Second, it hurts the company or university. A company not hiring someone or a university not admitting someone because they feel that the education system in that person's hometown is substandard is a good way to miss hiring a lot of great people. More importantly, it's inherently an invalid assumption for any kids who are smart enough to realistically get into an ivy league institution because, as I said, intelligent people will find ways to educate themselves no matter how bad the education system is.

Finally, you have to remember that those kids you're suggesting banning from employment and education didn't live in a state because they wanted to. They lived there because that's where their parents had a job. You should judge a candidate based on his or her merits. Judging someone based on where he or she was born or who his or her parents were is really no better than judging someone by the color of his or her skin.

Oh, and just to clarify, lest you think I'm being critical of Tennessee's education system, it isn't the best, but it is nowhere near the worst. By many metrics, California is much worse, and nobody in their right mind would suggest banning students from California. It is shameful using kids as political pawns, and it's clear that this is what is being advocated here, not for their benefit, but because of fundamentally unworkable notions of scientific purity that just don't make sense in the real world.

Finally, I would add that in places where a sizable percentage of students hold strict creationist beliefs, discussing creationism (provided the point-of-view is neutral) in science classes is actually moderately useful, in my opinion—not because I subscribe to a strict creationist view (I don't), but because students in those schools face a constant struggle between teachers who are telling them one thing and religious leaders who are telling them something entirely different. Having an op

Thank FSM!

[PPH]

My children won't have all this science crap forced upon them.

Law vs theory

[tgibbs]

Last time I looked it up, textbooks still said "Theory of Evolution" not "Law of Evolution". In fact I've had many professors over the years argue even Newton's Law of Gravity should be renamed a Theory, since the misnamed "law" has been debunked by later discoveries over the centuries.

You are falling into the misconception that a "Law" represents a higher level of certainty that a "Theory." That's not actually the way that scientists use the term. The usage of "Law" is more along the lines of "Rule of thumb" -- i.e. a simple formula that may or may not be exactly correct, but is close enough for many practical purposes. So we will continue to talk about Newton's "Laws of motion" and Einstein's "Theory of Relativity." Even though we know that Newton's Laws are definitely wrong, and Einstein's theory is, to say the least, "more right." But Einstein's theory has complications that just get in the way for many practical purposes. If you want to calculate the trajectory of an artillery shell, you'll use Newton's Laws, not Einstein's more accurate theory.

Re:Law vs theory

[s.petry]

Stop spreading false information. Law is proven and theory is theory, it's not some ratio leveling scheme like you claim. The "theory" of gravity is still that, because we lack a great deal of understanding... it's a theory. The models of the Universe and Gravity only work when we put in magic stuff called "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter". That is the only way that Einstein's models work. Even then it fails when we encounter things like black holes.

So did Einstein cover more than Newton and do some things better? Sure but the theory of relativity is still just a theory. The theory of the gravitational constant is still a theory. (We believe there is a true "law" out there, but we sure as hell have not found it yet.)

Stop and think.. are you any better than the people being complained about?

Re:Law vs theory

[tgibbs]

Stop spreading false information. Law is proven and theory is theory, it's not some ratio leveling scheme like you claim.

Sorry, but as a scientist I can tell you that that is simply not how we use the term. It does not denote a theory that is "proven"--because there is no such thing.

From elementary logic we know that no generalization about the natural world can ever be proved. No matter how many apples you watch fall to the ground, it does not prove that the next apple will not fall up. And although the predictions of Einstein's theory of special relativity have been verified to an incredible degree of precision, it does not prove that a discrepancy will not arise when the theory is tested to yet one more decimal place.

So did Einstein cover more than Newton and do some things better? Sure but the theory of relativity is still just a theory.

Theories cannot be proved, but they can be disproved. Newton's laws of motion have been disproved--the predictions of the theory are in error. On the other hand, Einstein's theory of special relativity has been extensively tested and validated, and may indeed be perfectly correct--but logically speaking, the most you can say about it--or about any scientific theory, is "not yet disproved."

But even though we know that they are wrong, we will continue to refer to Newton's "Law's" of motion--because they are simple and because even though they are not the truth, they are a good enough approximation for most practical purposes. And no matter how much the predictions of Einstein's theory of special relativity are tested and confirmed, we will never call it a "Law," because it introduces mathematical complications that only become important under unusual conditions or when extremely high precision is required.

Re:Law vs theory

[s.petry]

Relativity only works when we load the Universe with materials that we guess exist (Dark Matter and Dark Energy). It's a huge amount of speculation. We can make relativity work with items here on Earth much better, but not when we leave the atmosphere. Are many of Einstein's predictions seemingly correct? Sure, but to tout them as law when we know that it does not work is no different than someone pointing at a black book and saying "it's all in there" (I think you get the reference).

As I mention below, there are many Science evangelists that are just as closed minded as there are Religious evangelists. Sadly they evangelize just as hard as them as well.

Science can not answer many things, and lots of people claim it's the answer to everything. I'm not going to retype what I did below, but if you read it.. that's what I'm referring to. There are huge amounts of philosophical questions that go beyond that simple question as well.

Re:Law vs theory

[tgibbs]

Relativity only works when we load the Universe with materials that we guess exist (Dark Matter and Dark Energy). It's a huge amount of speculation.

Sorry, but this is completely wrong. Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity does not refer to any of them (it is the Special Theory that has supplanted Newton's Laws of Motion). Even Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (which is more accurate than Newton's Law of Gravitational attraction, but is clearly not a complete theory of gravity) predates these and does not require them.

We can make relativity work with items here on Earth much better, but not when we leave the atmosphere.

Also utter nonsense. Special relativity has been tested in multiple ways both in the absence of atmosphere here on earth and with respect to phenomena in outer space. No exceptions have been found anywhere.

Are many of Einstein's predictions seemingly correct? Sure, but to tout them as law when we know that it does not work is no different than someone pointing at a black book and saying "it's all in there" (I think you get the reference).

Who's touting them as "Law?" As I noted before, the way the word "Law" is used by actual working scientists is pretty much equivalent to "rule of thumb" -- a simple formula that may or may not be entirely accurate, but that is easy to apply and a good enough approximation to the truth to be broadly applicable. Einstein's Special Theory has been verified to an amazing degree of precision, but no matter how many decimals of precision its predictions are verified to, I can guarantee that scientists will never start calling it a "Law" -- it may in fact be absolutely true, but at lacks the simplicity and convenience of Newton's (incorrect) Laws of Motion.

Science can not answer many things, and lots of people claim it's the answer to everything.

As a scientist, this statement makes no sense to me. I don't know of any scientist who would claim that science is the answer to everything. On the other hand, denying scientific knowledge has historically been the answer to nothing.

I feel the Call...

[Mr. Firewall]

...to go to Nashville to preach the Gospel! We of the One True Religion need to go there and demand that all Creationist myths be granted equal time, including ours. Fortunately there is an Old Spaghetti Factory franchise in Nashville, so we'll be able to attend worship services while we're there among all those heathens. O bless His Noodly Appendage!

Mixing politics and religion

[GerryGilmore]

Mixing politics and religion *NEVER* elevates politics, but it *ALWAYS* debases religion. Nuff said.....

And the other side of that discussion ...

[khasim]

If you want to talk about children being killed, you should consider what "religious fanatics" fight against every day. Over 54 million children killed legally under US law since the 60s, in the name of choice.

Ignoring your choice of "children" in that statement ...

The other side of that discussion is over 150 million women in the USofA who are not treated as slaves because some man wants them to birth children for him.

I'll take the rights of LIVING woman over the rights or a unborn child any day.

Those "religious fanatics" are fighting to take away the rights of those 150 million women.

Re:And the other side of that discussion ...

[purplebear]

So, 150 million women killed their unborn children? The numbers of children killed is much larger than Planned Parenthood proclaims. What makes these women slaves? While I agree they probably are slaves, not in the sense you try to claim, I contend with your position that having a child makes them a slave to a man. I know a ton of women that would argue vehemently with you.

I don't see anyone fighting to take away anyone's rights. I believe the rights of both the living woman and the living unborn child are equal under the constitution. The right to life should be equally afforded to all. I never said forsake the woman for the child. And I never would. My wife would force the Dr to fight for both lives if either or both were endangered during pregnancy. As any sensible woman would.

Re:And the other side of that discussion ...

[MadFan]

I see two counter argument points here.
1 - The unborn child are people that will be men & women themselfs. Just because they are unborn doesn't make them not people. (Unless you want to get to the argument of unhuman people are like blacks, asians, jews, 99%ers etc... there not real people so have no rights. )

2 - Scale of "right". Should I be denied life because it's an inconvenience to someone else? How about if someone was holding you hostage for a quarter?
why should I pay quarter of my money to save your live?
In that argument the woman/girl is being greatly inconvenience for 9 months wither or not it's her own fault doesn't matter, the other human is being deprived their right to live.

So how dare those "religious fanatics" are fighting to preserve the right to life (even to you once maybe?) just because it annoys your mother.

So tell me, what is worth more? Your life or you mother being inconvenience for 9 months.

Re:The Tyranny of the (Localized) Majority

[Montezumaa]

States already have the option of succession, regardless of what Abraham Lincoln(one of our worst presidents) believed. The Union exiss at the discretion of the various states, the original Thirteen n foundation. As such, it is at the discretion of the various states to void our Union, at any time.

As to the topic of discussion: There is no one here that can actually prove Evolution, anymore than I can directly prove Creationism. There are a lot of very imaginative theories on Evolution, but no one can prove proof that it actually occurred. As such, I see no reason why the shortcoming of Evolution shouldn't be taught.

Regardless of all of this, there is no fucking mention of creationism being taught in school. So many short fuses here are too shortsighted and I'll tempered to understand this. How about reading the fucking law, prior to making false assumptions.

christians =!= bible humpers

[formfeed]

... it contradicts a bunch of fairy tales written thousands of years ago by sand people.

Oh, the typical black and white /. thing. Believing that there is a purpose to it all (theist), and that Jesus expressed that and reminded people to love each other (Christian) or that there might be even a particular group (denomination) that could be helpful as a community, doesn't make you one of these fairy tale people. Worldwide, most Christians even aren't.

Now for the brain washed blank stare. Yes, indeed a very special bunch. You can find them in religious, political, and ideological flavors. Any doubt just proves that you aren't 100% committed. Any outside criticism or ridicule just helps to prove that you are better than all these blind people.

Jesus would have just loved them..
Jesus: "Follow me"
Literalists form a conga line.
Jesus: "That's not what I meant."

- And I am afraid we will see more of that.

Teach The Controversy

[theghost]

Teach The Controversy

The best part about those shirts - most of the people they are making fun of are too dumb to understand that your shirt is making fun of them. Wearing one is like a secret handshake for reasonably intelligent people.

Re:sshhhh! Better not teach about the fake apemen

[UnknowingFool]

Yes there have been fakes in science. And they have been exposed as such. There have been fakes in art as well but people don't discount the history of art as invalid because people have faked art pieces. The history of Chinese art isn't any less valid just because there is a burdgeoning industry to create and make fakes these days. The purpose of this bill is to introduce all the cons of evolution, magnify them, and discredit it as a science without an objective view.

Evolution does not answer the most basic question

[s.petry]

The question is "What is the origin of the Universe?"

The fact is that neither evolution or creationism can answer the question. For any strict evolutionists that wish to evangelize "big bang" or "multi-verse" as the answer, save your arguments because they fall short. I have spent years studying the question and debating with people that are brilliant.

I'm not defending zealots on the side of religion, but rather pointing out that I find many of the evolution zealots just as offensive as someone evangelizing any other traditional religion.

"Science" evangelists tend to forget that we have no proper way of defining life, let alone understanding how it occurs. We have some ideas regarding evolution, but if you don't know what caused the Universe to begin with you can't answer the debate of whether there is or is not a "God".

If you wish to investigate the argument, I'd recommend going and reading some of the works of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle (I prefer Aristotle's argument myself). Numerous other philosophers have covered that same ground over and over again since then, but the question still remains valid today.

Sorry, but your science evangelism does not answer the question any more than a book thumping evangelist.

Re:The Tyranny of the (Localized) Majority

[gestalt_n_pepper]

it is at the discretion of the various states to void our Union, at any time.
Um. Apparently not. That's part of what the civil war was about.

but no one can prove proof that it actually occurred.
I can "prove proof" it about a thousand different ways, starting with the fossil record and ending with genetic algorithms. As for evolution's shortcomings, please do enlighten us.

there is no fucking mention of creationism being taught in school
Correct. Backdoor methods are in. Honest and direct methods are out. Those didn't work and why let honesty get in the way of pushing a religious agenda?

I'll tempered to understand this
OK, I think we lost the thread of the English language right about here. Perhaps you'd care to rephrase this in a way that native speakers of American English might understand.

Re:Tired of this debate

[Chelloveck]

Did I forget something?

Yes. The fact that a lot of people have absolutely no idea what the scientific method is, or believe that adherence to it is just another form of faith-based "religion". You can't convince someone like that. Presenting logic and evidence doesn't work. They've already decided to reject it because it's someone else's faith and it conflicts with theirs. They simply don't believe in science.

That problem cuts both ways, of course. They argue from the basis of their faith, their scriptures. We reject it because science requires there to be a way to prove that it's wrong, and the scriptures cannot be falsified. The book is right because it's right, end of sentence.

See the problem? Neither side can convince the other, because both sides reject the foundational principles of the other. We reject faith because it can't be falsified. They reject the need for falsification because they have faith.

(Then there's the third side, who believe that because science and faith are completely orthogonal to each other that there's no conflict between them. Science is real. So is god. These people tend not to take the scriptures literally, but seen them as a set of analogies that were intended to be understood by the uneducated common people way back in the day. Or in Slashdot terms, "In the beginning, God created the chassis, and it was good. On the second day God created the engine and powertrain, and did install them unto the chassis...")

Re:allowing something

[HeckRuler]

So if there is no evidence what is the problem?

That they're teaching the issue like there IS evidence supporting creationism when there isn't. Right along side evolution, which DOES have evidence supporting it. And pretending that they are scientifically comparable.

People need to be encouraged to reason not just memorize whichever view we decide is "right" and cram down their throats.

Reasoning is good. But the kids better know that 1+1=2. It's true. Trust me. Later on we might teach you about the null set axiom or the axiom of choice, but only if you're really interested in math. So for now, I'm totally going to cram it down your throat that 1+1=2.

Likewise, evolution is true. It's happening and observable. If you're interested, and you go into biology, we might show you about gene recombination, natural selection, genetic drift, phenotypes, recessive/dominate genes, and all sorts of other stuff, but for now you can trust us that evolution is true.

the west forgetting that the world is round

Wut? That never actually happened. It's part of the Columbus myth that nationalistic americans built up. There have been idiots throughout the ages, but a spherical earth has been the standard since the greeks figured it out.

Ignoring something with such a huge impact on society, and the tempo of science is crazy IMHO.

Indeed. Which is why we learn about such things OUTSIDE the science classroom. (Possibly aspects of it in sociology).

History repeating

[bjackz0r]

Tennessee has been here before and the ACLU had to step in.

Skeptical about Science vs. Creationist Crap

[spaceyhackerlady]

They should be teaching students to be skeptical. To examine the evidence, to test its validity, to see how the conclusions were arrrived at. This is A Good Thing.

What they really want to do, of course, is place evolution on the same footing as "In the beginning..." If students were genuinely skeptical they would quickly see what makes sense and what is religious nonsense.

...laura

wrong

[geekoid]

"On the contrary, all of the fundamentals of science are taken on faith."
no, they are not. Scientific theory can disprove itself.

"But it's just blind assertion that logic works"
no, not blind, shown. It has been show, countless times, that logic works.

"that an objective universe exists,"
There is no evidence to the contrary. However if there were, the scientific method would ferret it out.

" that the laws of that universe are reasonably consistent over time"
NO evidence counters that, and much of what we can prove we wouldn't be able to if it didnt.

"In short, science is based on the faith that the observed universe is not some sort of practical joke at our expense."
wrong, again. IT's based on finding out why things as we observe using good repeatable methods. If there was evidence of this practical joke, the that too would get incorporated into what we know.

The fact that you don't understand science doesn't make it wrong.

Re:wrong

[lgw]

The fact that you don't understand science doesn't make it wrong.

The fact that you don't understand philosophy doesn't make it wrong. Are we done with the ad-hominums yet, or should I go into your ancestry and personal habits?

"But it's just blind assertion that logic works"
no, not blind, shown. It has been show, countless times, that logic works.

Please, without using logic, give me a logical argument that logic works? All systems of logic are based on flat out assertions: here are the axioms, here are the rules. And there's no way to justify those assertions, because you'd need a system of logic for that.

OK, what about a complete, consistent (and non-trivial) system of logical reasoning? Sadly, you can't have that either. All you have is a tool that you have found useful. Great. I find it useful too. But you cannot possibly prove that it works.

"that an objective universe exists,"
There is no evidence to the contrary. However if there were, the scientific method would ferret it out.

No, you could not possibly prove that you're not imagining it all. Because any imaginable proof could be imagined. You have to take it on faith that it's not all some practical joke.

" that the laws of that universe are reasonably consistent over time"
NO evidence counters that, and much of what we can prove we wouldn't be able to if it didnt.

Sorry, the bleen problem is real. There's just no way to argue against "the universe has behaved one way for it's history, but tomorrow it will begin behaving differently" (and that's not the only limit of inductive reasoning). Again, you have to take it on faith that it's not all some practical joke.

"In short, science is based on the faith that the observed universe is not some sort of practical joke at our expense."
wrong, again. IT's based on finding out why things as we observe using good repeatable methods. If there was evidence of this practical joke, the that too would get incorporated into what we know.

Wow, talk about asserting your conclusions! Not just faith, but blind faith for this one.

Re:wrong

[bzipitidoo]

what about a complete, consistent (and non-trivial) system of logical reasoning?

See, this is the problem. No can do! Perhaps you've heard of Godel's incompleteness theorems? I think you have, the way you worded that demand. You expect the wrong thing and too much. You demand completeness and consistency, and upon hearing that can't be done, you rush to the incorrect conclusion that scientists therefore are taking things on faith.

No, you could not possibly prove that you're not imagining it all.

That's right, but so what? This is why science is restricted to natural phenomena. There is of course no way to prove that $DIETY or anything else supernatural does or does not exist, and is or is not messing with us and our perceptions. We could be living in a giant simulator. The universe could have been created anytime, be that 5000 years ago or 5 minutes ago, and it only seems to be about 14 billion years old. Or perhaps the universe never was created, it has always existed. Or maybe it's something even stranger and paradoxical, maybe it somehow created itself, traveling back in time to do that, sort of a wheel of time.

But for some reason, you are trying to argue that believing in our perceptions, in what we see and observe, is a matter of faith. It is not. The minute you start down the path of being unsure that what we all see is objective reality, you've shoved yourself right back into the horror of chaos. You can't ever know what's right, can't prove anything, can't agree on anything. Your whole world is on a foundation of quicksand, and you're hating life. You're tempted to throw up your hands, and turn over all responsibility for thinking to some guru. Some of those gurus like it that way, as this allows them to make up anything they like, anything whatever, and no one can argue against them because no one can "prove" anything. They've made the standards for proof too high. And so we occasionally have tragedies like Heaven's Gate.

Or you glom onto some pseudoscience such as Creationism. You very badly want to believe it, and now you can because you've denied the foundations of philosophy and rational thought. And why do you want so badly to believe it? Because, contradictorily enough, faith isn't good enough for you, you want proof! You want to see fiery letters burning themselves into stone tablets of their own accord, you want an even more profound miracle than the fact we exist. If Genesis is not literally correct, then suddenly you're doubting your whole religion! You're being too literal, too narrow, too unwilling to consider that reality is not black and white, that there are many other plausible explanations. God can coexist just fine with evolution, and the Bible can still be the word of God, despite Genesis not being literally correct. But instead, to get absolute "proof", you turn to the trappings of science despite having rejected science itself. Sad. Really sad to see these Intelligent Design fanatics banging out "theories" in support of their conclusions, going at science totally backwards and at the same time abandoning faith. They've already settled on their model, and busy themselves trying to force the facts to fit their model. And somehow they've convinced themselves that that's science. And it doesn't work, making them very unhappy and defensive. They would prefer to believe that the rest of humanity is engaged in a giant conspiracy to keep them down and silence them, which is no real surprise considering the huge difficulty they've demonstrated in accepting basic facts.

Fine with me...

[LihTox]

as long as they teach the controversy of abortion, abstinence, and the drug wars. What? Yeah, didn't think so.

Falsifiability

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

OK, take it one step at a time.

CO2-caused global warming? Falsifiable predictions include the stratosphere getting colder due to longwave absorption in the troposphere, nights getting warmer, and drops in longwave re-radiation measured by satellites.

Anthropogenic? Falsifiable predictions include an isotope ratio in the new CO2 compatible with fossil fuel use, and that non-anthropogenic CO2 sources aren't the cause of the increase.

Catastrophic? Falsifiable if the measured sensitivity of temperature to CO2 falls outside the calculated error bars, or if there's an observed epoch or calculated mechanism where the temperatures we're about to experience coexisted with sea levels that would not be catastrophic.

Re:Falsifiability

[hsthompson69]

CO2-caused global warming? Falsifiable predictions include the stratosphere getting colder due to longwave absorption in the troposphere, nights getting warmer, and drops in longwave re-radiation measured by satellites.

Any greenhouse gas warming will cause that (or even terrestrial warming from oceans) - what makes any of that specific to CO2? Why not H2O?

More importantly, if CO2 causes global warming, why does the historical record show a lag of CO2 to temperature? How did CO2 know when to stop warming in the past?

Anthropogenic? Falsifiable predictions include an isotope ratio in the new CO2 compatible with fossil fuel use, and that non-anthropogenic CO2 sources aren't the cause of the increase.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/

"BOTTOM LINE: If the C13/C12 relationship during NATURAL inter-annual variability is the same as that found for the trends, how can people claim that the trend signal is MANMADE??"

Catastrophic? Falsifiable if the measured sensitivity of temperature to CO2 falls outside the calculated error bars, or if there's an observed epoch or calculated mechanism where the temperatures we're about to experience coexisted with sea levels that would not be catastrophic

We have observed epochs where temperatures that we are about to experience coexisted with sea levels that were not catastrophic - Holocene optimum and Medieval Warm Period for example (arguments as to the regional nature of the MWP are subject to the same scrutiny that say, paleo records of certain trees in regional areas would be subject to).

So, now that your falsifications have been shown, are you ready to give up your beliefs?

The Missing Link(s)

[qeorqe]

cached copy of the linked story, Knoxville News story (senate passes 24-8), bill summary, bill data

What about the controversy of Capitalism? Of God?

[RandCraw]

If the controversy evolution is fair game, then Tennessee's students should question all kinds of controversies, like:

- Does God exist? Do literal interpretations of the Bible make sense?

- Are christianity and capitalism incompatble? Isn't love of money a sin? Was Jesus a socialist?

- Was Robert E Lee a traitor? So shouldn't the statues of him be torn down and spat on?

I dare you. Open Pandora's Box.

something a few(many) of you need to watch

[geekoid]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

Some peopel don't know what open minded means.

Re:sshhhh! Better not teach about the fake apemen

[geekoid]

because no one in science actually took it seriously. When they did, science happened. They tested, it failed we moved on.

So on one side, why have your paltry list of a few frauds, on the other side we have mountains and mountains of verified facts, and predictions.

well done, idiot.

Anyone who wants an 'apeman' doesn't actually understand evolution.

"And there's plenty more evidence for the non-existenance of evolution!"
no, there isn't. But you keep cherry picking anomalies.

Re:Ahem, Tennessee Universities?

[webnut77]

Taking away the intellectuals would just make them happy.

If that would mean you weren't here, then yah. But then it wouldn't.

Re:allowing something

[jo_ham]

In a science classroom, that *is* the only relevant source of truth. The Scientific Method what determines "truth" in this context (and even then, it puts limitations on the use of the word). The problem with religion and Creationism in this scenario is that it positions a supernatural creator as the solution, with no evidence or falsifiable hypothesis. It's simply not science. They have tried to dress it up like science but it does not bear scrutiny.

This doesn't mean that no other sources of "truth" exist - for example, spiritual discussions, philosophy etc; simply that calling certain things "science" and placing them in a situation where they are given equal weight to a scientific theory in a scientific context and taught as one just will not hold.

As long as..

[malkavian]

They teach "The Controversy of Evolution" alongside "The Unscientific Factless Idiocy of Intelligent Design", then no problem.
Then get on with teaching kids the difference between a scientific theory and conjecture, then teach them the Theory of Evolution, as best fits the facts we have today. Then tell them that if they've got a problem with the Theory of Evolution, get a set of observable, repeatable facts that falsify it, and show us a better way of understanding what's going on.
C'mon guys.. It's not rocket science. It's just plain science!

ENOUGH!

[Mr. Mikey]

Enough.

Enough of our coddling ignorance.

Enough of our mealy-mouthed, passive acquiescence to the willful denial of reality.

Enough of our society shooting itself in the foot by watering down our science education, and our discussion of science in the public and political sphere by mixing in myth and pseudoscience.

There is no controversy. There is no debate. There is no real "other side" to this discussion.

Modern evolutionary theory is one of the most wel-developed, well-supported scientific theories we have. It as much settled science as science can get.

Evolution is a fact, in that it is the label for a phenomena we can directly and indirectly observe.

Evolutionary theory is not somehow inferior to fact. Indeed, it is in many ways superior to the level of fact, in that it is made up of facts, and is tested and confirmed, repeatedly, against reality.

If your religion claims that evolution isn't true, then, when it comes to this subject, your religion is wrong.

We should stop letting this nonsense slide. Our nation is competing against highly technological, committed, dedicated workers from other countries. We aren't doing ourselves any favors by mixing myth with our science.

Re:ENOUGH!

[EuclideanSilence]

It is such a fact, that no one on the entire forum has given one argument in favor of it.

Here's a better idea. Screw Evolution, don't teach it in high school, teach math instead. Having a student who can put "yes evolution is a fact" on a test does not make him any less of a moron. Force them to learn the things that would make them somewhat capable of defending a position on evolution.

Chemistry. Combinatorial counting. Statistics and Probability. Anatomy.

Teach these in high school and save the more advanced topics for college. Most high school students couldn't even handle this much. Furthermore, if the students learned these things, they'd be smarter than everyone on this forum. Then instead of shouting "oh god evolution is a fact" they'd be capable of human reasoning.

This will never happen though. The reason is because there are a hell of a lot of people who want to pretend that they are scientists but can handle basic mathematical rigor. So instead of going into physics and chemistry, they go into a field that will coddle them: biology. There are no teachers who can teach the subject correctly because our standards are just too damn low.

Re:allowing something

[ILongForDarkness]

How about the old maps with "here be dragons"? I suppose it is possible that the world was round with dragons on one side :-)

Things don't have to be true in order to be important to know. Religion has had a huge impact on society. Draws a large percentage of GDP, was responsible for the content if not the inspiration to create some of the greatest works of art. Inspires a large number of the nut jobs that blow themselves up in hopes of killing people like you etc. You better believe that peoples beliefs are important. Again I don't see how a teacher saying "creationists don't like evolution because it doesn't match with their belief that the bibles 6 days of creation is literally true, or that the earth is on the back of a giant turtle, or ...". It doesn't have to be true for it to be something they should be aware of, and in a loose sense it is true: it is true that their exists a large percentage of the population that believe and will die for such myths.

Gotta love the religious right

[walterbyrd]

Story on slashdot:

Teacher Suspended For Reading Ender's Game To Students
Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday March 20, @02:29PM
> "Forbes reports that a middle school teacher in South Carolina has been placed on administrative leave for reading sci-fi classic Ender's Game to his students. According to blogger Tod Kelly, '[A parent] reported him to the school district complained that the book was pornographic; that same parent also asked the local police to file criminal charges against the teacher. As of today, the police have not yet decided whether or not to file charges (which is probably a good sign that they won't). The school district, however, appears to agree with the parent, is considering firing the teacher and will be eliminating the book from the school.'"

So this mommy thinks Ender's Game is pornographic, and the bible isn't? Isn't that the sort of thing that Mr. Spock will say to computers to make the computers explode?

http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/03/20/1749236/teacher-suspended-for-reading-enders-game-to-students

God will save us from climate change: U.S. Representative
> U.S. Representative John Shimkus, possible future chairman of the Congressional committee that deals with energy and its attendant environmental concerns, believes that climate change should not concern us since God has already promised not to destroy the Earth.

http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-news-section/69-69/3938-god-will-save-us-from-climate-change-us-representative

Pastor introducing Rick Santorum: America a Christian nation:

> "This nation was founded as a Christian nation...there's only one God and his name is Jesus. I'm tired of people telling me that I can't say those words. [...] If you don't love America and you don't like the way we do things, I've got one thing to say -- Get out! We don't worship Buddha. I said we don't worship Buddha. We don't worship Mohammed. We don't worship Allah. We worship God. We worship God's son Jesus Christ."

Santorum didn't object at the time, either.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/pastor-introducing-rick-santorum-america-a-christian-nation/2012/03/20/gIQAHeMlPS_blog.html

Re:it's just a theory...

[ccanucs]

As someone who believe it is entirely wrong to lie about anything that is something that makes no sense.

Playing up the stereotype

[0-9a-f]

I refer you to that well-known product from Good Ol' Boys Systems: The Tenne-C programming language.

Tenne-C

Lets have a real discussion

[Anonymous Coward]

If the theory of evolution is in fact so sound that people are willing to call it a proven fact, then there shouldn't be a problem discussing alternative theories or contradicting ideas. After all, if people want to say, "think for yourselves, make your own decisions," then why not present multiple theories and let people decide for themselves. I don't think self-proclaimed "smart people" have an issue with intelligent design because it's ludicrous, I think they have an issue with it because they don't want to wrestle with the question of "what if God does exist?"

All I'm saying is: if evolution is SO sound, then let is stand up to the same firing squad that creationism does.

Re:Lets have a real discussion

[gVibe]

Um. I think they already do that. It why so many wars are going on. Instead...why not just prove it, rub it in the faces of all those who are wrong....and be done with it.

Behe and Dembski contradict

[wanax]

I'd first suggest to try reading some John Holland, like Hidden Order for example, which will elucidate the errors of argument better than my brief response.

Suppose we think about evolution and natural selection as a 'fitness landscape' (it's many dimensional, but let's call it two for the moment). Going vertical optimizes for a specific environment, going lateral means being viable in a range of environments. Evolution is in this setting inevitable, transcription errors are made etc and mutations happen. The theory of natural selection claims that those mutations that are beneficial to the organism prosper, whether that movement is an optimization within their own local fitness area or one that allows them to attempt to migrate into areas that were previously not viable.

One primary problem with Behe and Dembski's theories, is that they make contradictory assumptions about the fitness landscape. Behe argues, with irreducible complexity, that the comparatively low entropic (local minima) state of the mammalian eye is evidence of intelligent design since high entropy, intermediate, eyes wouldn't be sustainable (turns out all the intermediate versions exist). Dembski on the other hand seems to argue the position that increasing entropy is demanding, and the growth in complexity is important in the context of the fitness landscape. So those theories are contradictory.

But where they both run into a global (think variable, not earth) problem (human knowledge passing is Lamarckian, not Mendelian on the whole) is that neither consider the lateral aspects of the landscape, and think that everything is either climbing or descending, mostly in opposite directions!

Re:Why so scared?

[MiniMike]

Scientists don't mind people questioning their science. If the scientist is correct, their work will stand up to it. If they're not correct, they now know more than they did before and can correct their theory.
Scientists do mind people people saying they're wrong, but offering no evidence/proof/reasoning why, instead just saying 'because I/this book/these tea leaves/loud guy on tv/someone with absolutely no scientific knowledge say so'. Scientists also don't like when people subvert the scientific process, then claim their predetermined "results" disprove reams of peer-reviewed research. Nothing religious about it.

Re:allowing something

[HeckRuler]

Dude, re-read the end of my post. I AGREE that religion is an important thing to learn about and study. Just not as a science. Please stop harping on things that aren't being argued against. I get it.

Again I don't see how a teacher saying "creationists don't like evolution because it doesn't match with their belief that the bibles 6 days of creation is literally true, or that the earth is on the back of a giant turtle, or ...".

You don't see how that does what?
Is this an example of a teacher pointing out the criticisms of evolution? You don't see how that could be bad? Well alright then, how about we give half an hour in the history class to the holocaust deniers? Or some time to hear the white supremacist views on the civil war? There could be a footnote about homeopathy and trephination as alternatives to real medicine in biology class? Come on, teach the controversy!

and in a loose sense it is true:

THIS! This right here is where I take objection. It's that little wheedling wedge that your type tries to drive into everyone's heads constantly. You yourself turn about and call it myth. You claim that it's important even if it isn't true. Ok, sure, whatever, I know a lot about Orcs and Elves I guess, but THE INSTANT that you try to claim some "loose" sense of truth to creationism is the moment I stop listening to anything you say because you obviously have an agenda and you're working on teaching that lie to my kids.

Re:allowing something

[ILongForDarkness]

I'm not saying creationism is true, I'm an agnostic and a physicist. I just hate ignorance, even if it is ignorance about something you don't agree with. If it was some fringe idea like crystal healing it is one thing, but when it is a core belief of a very very large proportion of society to ignore the fact that your idea is controversial is crazy. Heck go to the wrong place and you'll get killed for suggesting evolution, or that god doesn't exist, hence it is good to be aware of people's beliefs/superstitions.

I am saying that a large, perhaps majority, of people think and act like it is true. Ignoring that, ignoring how that affects things like abortion rights, funding for stem cell research, how hard it was to convince people that evolution was true, how much the non-determinism of modern physics screwed with the determinism caused by the concept of a future seeing God, how it affects choices in what is moral and what isn't, what rights women should have and not have etc. is ridiculous. So what only kids that happen to have religious parents should learn anything about it (and presumably that will be a biased teaching of it because they have specific views on the topic)?

Re:allowing something

[HeckRuler]

Holy HELL dude. Listen to me.
Thricely I say I agree with you, Thricely I acknowledge that the phenomena known as religion should be studied. This is a good idea. On this you and I are in agreement. You don't have to argue about it any more. No one is arguing except you.

It's a good idea to learn about religion because it's important to understand why people think what they do. So we should teach about it in a sociology class.

Religion, and religious views, is not a science. The study of how people deal with religion, and how religion deals with people, falls under sociology. It does not fall under biology next to evolution. Teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution is in NO WAY related to teaching kids the sociological impact of religion. Not teaching kids creationism in NO WAY keeps religion out of the sociology class.

Sure,

[ToddInSF]

if you get the hell out of TN !

My 2 cents...

[ragweed]

I think both creationism and evolution are theories and neither can be proved with material evidence. Both should be taught. I personally believe in creation... and consider this point: How long would it take for a heart to evolve with blood, veins, marrow... If it evolved first... how long until the nervous system came to support it. or Digestion, or Respiration. What would be the purpose a heart without lungs... So many systems are dependent on other systems. It will be ridiculous for a heart alone to come into function without a need! So... a heart, lungs, blood vessels, neural autonomic control, digestion .. etc.. had to come into being together, because none could function alone. If you believe that's by chance... Sorry! What proof? Both are blind beliefs. It's easier to believe in a Divine being than what we have today happening by chance.

Re:My 2 cents...

[virg_mattes]

OK, let's go with your idea that "both" creationism and evolution should be taught. Which creation story do you teach? All of them? the top ten? Just yours? How do you address things like the "goal" of evolution? Abiotic genesis doesn't require this idea, but Intelligent Design does, so do you "teach the controversy" and point out that problem? In short, whose story takes precedence? You're going to have to choose, because there are thousands of creation stories and you can't filter out any of them if you want to argue that your particular one is scientific.

By the way, the whole concept if irreducible complexity got taken apart long ago, so your arguments about development of a heart and such aren't much use. Just to give you the ten second version, the use of a heart without lungs would be circulation. Just because complex bodies use circulation to move oxygen doesn't mean that it's a must. Take note that trees use circulation, but not to move oxygen, so they'd be able to use "a heart without lungs".

It's easier to believe in a Divine being than what we have today happening by chance.

The concept that evolution represents "by chance" simply proves that you don't know enough about evolution to comment. Learn that evolution doesn't happen by chance (that's mutation, and evolution describes the path laid out by the environmental choosing of the most beneficial mutations) and you'll be better able to argue the point.

Virg

Too many people worrying over

[ToddInSF]

how to teach kids WHAT to think.

Which is part of the American trend to barrage students with useless and excessive testing.

Real educators teach people HOW to think. Not what to.

This is propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Every week or so, Slashdot runs a similarly themed article.

The general idea is to use poorly defined terms to convince you that there is no debate and that evolution is a fact.

Well, evolution is a fact, when it is defined as "life changes over time." But this is such a general definition that it has little real meaning.

And, the idea of special creation is about the creation of life, not how it changes over time.

So, creation and evolution are orthogonal concepts. They could both be valid.

Now, while evolution is a fact, how life evolves and to what extent are very much open scientific questions. For example, it is not a fact that life evolved from a single common ancestor. It is not a fact that life originated naturalistically.

Richard Dawkins, who hasn't published a peer reviewed paper in over 30 years, will say that random mutation and natural selection are the mechanisms that account for the origin and development of all life. Many other scientists who have published in peer reviewed journals, beg to differ. Instead, they rightly point out that Dawkins has no evidence to support his hypothesis. For example, no one can describe how DNA and protein synthesis could have evolved via RM+NS. They may have, but there's no theory that can be tested to show that they did.

This is where it gets very interesting. Origin of life research is at a stand-still. The leading hypothesis is that life originated in an extreme zone, perhaps somewhere else other than earth. This is 50 years after the famous Stanley Miller experiments that have long since been discredited. Even Miller himself said that there is "no plausible abiotic pathway to the synthesis of life."

Finally, most people reading this thread have no idea about population genetics, mutation rates, beneficial mutation rates, the time it takes for a beneficial mutation to propagate, speciation, and so on. If they did they'd begin to recognize that the idea of naturalistic origin of life and purely naturalistic evolution are fairy tales in the sense that they require just as much faith and belief (if not more) than the idea of special creation.

Creation

[LtRav3nw00d]

Creationism & Evolution go hand in hand. It is not either or.
Who started evolution ? The answer is GOD !
Who created GOD ? No one !
GOD is beyond time and space. GOD is beyond our comprehension.
He is the Alpha and Omega, he has no beginning and no end.

The Bible is not a science book, nor should it be taken as one.
But creationism is a scientific question. Who created all this ?

Peace be with you.

Re:Evolution on Slashdot

[virg_mattes]

If Dobzhanskyâ(TM)s assertion is true, âoeHow is it, thenâ, Moroz asks, âoethat so few newly minted PhDs in the biological sciences have taken any formal graduate school courses in evolution or biodiversity?â

Wait, wait, I can answer this one! There's no money in it.

Good question. Maybe the creationist have taken over graduate level biological sciences!

Or maybe it was the accountants instead. Or perhaps it was the people like you who like to say things like "you evolution people" that make it troublesome to get funding. When all the money's in medical research, why would you expect a bunch of new PhDs to put their time and energy into biodiversity?

Virg

Scientific Facts vs. Beliefs

[Friendly_Zergling]

Scientific facts are great, but evolution is no fact and it is not scientific. What is it then? Evolution is a religion. Evolution is a belief system. You can choose to believe what other people say, that life evolved over millions of years, without ever confirming the facts for yourself. Do you believe or not? It's a decision we may all make. If evolution were scientific, you or I could verify the claim, but we cannot. The Holy Bible described how God made man from dirt in a short amount of time. Evolution says that that Random accidents created life out of rock in a large amount of time... millions and millions of years. When I was in school and college, in all my lab work, I never once was taught how to determine the age of a rock or fossil. Were you? I have heard of Carbon dating, but no school ever taught me how to perform this dating technique. If anyone has access to a machine that can reliably age a rock, bone, or fossil, please let me know how I could purchase such a machine. I would like to test the accuracy of such a machine. Have YOU ever seen such a machine in your lab work?

All The Answeres

[morgauxo]

OMFG, It's here! In these comments! You have to read them all, start to finish but if you do and collect all the dots, really think about everything everyone has said you it's there! The Meaning of Life, the universe and Everything, starting with the exact true answer of where we came from! Us Slashdotters have it all figured out it's just that each of us only has a piece! Print this shit out, it's the new Bible!

Bad Moderation

[Tancred]

How was that trolling? I don't recall ever getting that before. I think either an I.D. proponent got a hold of moderator points or someone clicked the wrong button.

The "mess with us" comment was supposed to be funny, but based in fact. If you reject the evolutionary evidence of the fossil record, how did that evidence get there?

Both Sides

[glorybe]

I see nothing at all wrong with a science teacher stating that some people have a mystical view of the universe that has no place in science as it is unproven material. The teacher can go as far as saying evolution is a fact as we can produce it in a lab and study it actually happening.